(ngtrans) Another question about RFC2767 and draft-ietf-ngtrans-introduction-...
Chae-yong Chong <cychong@metro.telecom.samsung.co.kr> Thu, 20 September 2001 05:31 UTC
Received: from patan.sun.com (patan.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA19234 for <ngtrans-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 01:31:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from engmail4.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.144.134.6]) by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA21047; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 23:29:54 -0600 (MDT)
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 WAA27736; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 22:29:54 -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 f8K5M17B014910 for <ngtrans-dist@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 22:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by sunroof.eng.sun.com (8.12.0+Sun/8.12.0/Submit) id f8K5M1hn014909 for ngtrans-dist; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 22:22:01 -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 f8K5Lw7B014902 for <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 22:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lukla.Sun.COM (lukla.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.5.31]) by engmail3.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL, v2.1p1) with ESMTP id WAA00291 for <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 22:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from telecom.samsung.co.kr ([165.213.221.4]) by lukla.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA15552 for <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 23:22:47 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from cychong (a22416 [165.213.224.16]) by telecom.samsung.co.kr (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id f8K5LnP14226; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 14:21:49 +0900 (KST)
Message-ID: <000d01c14195$0d1b25a0$10e0d5a5@cychong>
From: Chae-yong Chong <cychong@metro.telecom.samsung.co.kr>
To: ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, Win.Biemolt@sec.nl, tsuchi@ebina.hitachi.co.jp
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0109180854350.13274-100000@netcore.fi>
Subject: (ngtrans) Another question about RFC2767 and draft-ietf-ngtrans-introduction-...
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 14:28:13 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ks_c_5601-1987"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by sunroof.eng.sun.com id f8K5Lx7B014903
Sender: owner-ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Chae-yong Chong <cychong@metro.telecom.samsung.co.kr>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hi.. I'm not sure the same question was posted already. If so, sorry for my duplicated question. 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? 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. I think this means that IPv4 host which implement must has native IPv6 address. So the "IPv6 address requirement" in draft must be changed to "1 per host". Chae-yong -------------------------------------------- Chae-yong Chong Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd E-mail : cychong@telecom.samsung.co.kr --------------------------------------------
- (ngtrans) Another question about RFC2767 and draf… Chae-yong Chong