Re: (ngtrans) Another question about RFC2767 and draft-ietf-ngtrans-introduction-...

Kazuaki Tsuchiya <kazuaki.tsuchiya@itg.hitachi.co.jp> Thu, 20 September 2001 09:16 UTC

Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA04180 for <ngtrans-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 05:16:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from engmail4.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.144.134.6]) by mercury.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA16532; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 02:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sunroof.eng.sun.com (sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM [129.146.168.88]) by engmail4.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id CAA22051; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 02:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sunroof.eng.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sunroof.eng.sun.com (8.12.0+Sun/8.12.0) with ESMTP id f8K95P7B015156 for <ngtrans-dist@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 02:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by sunroof.eng.sun.com (8.12.0+Sun/8.12.0/Submit) id f8K95PRw015155 for ngtrans-dist; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 02:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: sunroof.eng.sun.com: majordomo set sender to owner-ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com using -f
Received: from engmail3.Eng.Sun.COM (engmail3 [129.144.170.5]) by sunroof.eng.sun.com (8.12.0+Sun/8.12.0) with ESMTP id f8K95M7B015148 for <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 02:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from saturn.sun.com (saturn.EBay.Sun.COM [129.150.69.2]) by engmail3.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL, v2.1p1) with ESMTP id CAA24230 for <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 02:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hitpro.hitachi.co.jp (hitpro.hitachi.co.jp [133.145.224.7]) by saturn.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA22349 for <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 02:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wsd2.hitachi.co.jp by hitpro.hitachi.co.jp (8.9.3/3.7W-hitpro) id SAA02530; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 18:05:21 +0900 (JST)
Received: from kanagw970.kanagawa.hitachi.co.jp ([158.214.152.195]) by wsd2.hitachi.co.jp (NAVGW 2.5.1.12) with SMTP id M2001092018052000913 ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 18:05:20 +0900
Received: by kanagw970.kanagawa.hitachi.co.jp (8.9.0/3.6Wbeta6-GPCD) id SAA00298; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 18:05:20 +0900 (JST)
Received: by gm.kserv.kanagawa.hitachi.co.jp (8.9.3/3.6Wbeta6) id SAA04091; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 18:05:11 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2-J.20010920175752.00bd3490@158.214.152.238>
X-Sender: l8900025@158.214.152.238
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2-J
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 18:05:06 +0900
To: cychong@telecom.samsung.co.kr, Win.Biemolt@sec.nl
From: Kazuaki Tsuchiya <kazuaki.tsuchiya@itg.hitachi.co.jp>
Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Another question about RFC2767 and draft-ietf-ngtrans-introduction-...
Cc: ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com
In-Reply-To: <000d01c14195$0d1b25a0$10e0d5a5@cychong>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Kazuaki Tsuchiya <kazuaki.tsuchiya@itg.hitachi.co.jp>

Hi,

At 14:21 01/09/20 +0900, owner-ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com wrote:
>In BIS, when non-IPv6 application want to send a packet to IPv6 host, the Extension Name Resolver
>translate IPv4 DNS query message(Type 'A') to IPV6 DNS query message(type "A6" or "AAAA").
>Does the Extension Name resolver need to know the target node's hostname is IPv6' node?
>If so, how does the Extension Name Resolver know the translation(type "A" to "A6" or "AAAA" is required?

When BIS wants to send packets to a host(IPv4 or IPv6)
using IPv4 applications, the Extension Name Resolver
makes an IPv6 DNS query message from an IPV4 DNS query
message, and sends both messages to a DNS server.

o When the target node is an IPv4 host, the server returns
   an "A" record to BIS.

o When the target node is an IPv6 host, the server returns
   an "AAAA" record to BIS.

So BIS can know whether the target node is IPv4 or IPv6
automatically. There is no need to know whether the target
node is IPv4 or IPv6 in advance.



>And the draft-ietf-ngtrans-introduction-to-ipv6-transition-07.txt said that
>
>    IPv6 requirements:          none 
>    IPv6 address requirements:  none 
>
>But RFC2767 said that
>
>2.3 Address Mapper
>
>...
>
>    NOTE: There is only one exception. When initializing the table, it
>    registers a pair of its own IPv4 address and IPv6 address into the
>    table statically.

This just means that BIS needs an IPv6 address for
speaking in IPv6.

Thanks.

-- Kazuaki Tsuchiya, Hitachi.


------------------------------------------------------------
Kazuaki Tsuchiya, Hitachi.
   http://www.v6.hitachi.co.jp
   mailto:kazuaki.tsuchiya@itg.hitachi.co.jp (NEW!)
   mailto:tsuchiya@kanagawa.hitachi.co.jp