Re: [Softwires] [BEHAVE] Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06.txt> (Dual Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)) to Proposed Standard

["Dan Wing" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hui Deng [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 11:01 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06.txt>
> (Dual Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)) to Proposed Standard
> 
> Hi Dan
> 
> inline please,
> 
> 
> 	I believe the objection is against "non-deterministic
> translation",
> 	rather than stateful versus stateless.  By non-deterministic, I
> mean
> 	that the subscriber's equipment (e.g., CPE) cannot determine the
> 	mapping it will have on the Internet.  A+P mechanisms are
> 
> 
> Could you help be more elaboration on CPE can't determine the ampping?

It can't determine the public IP address and port of a mapping on the 
NAT64 (CGN), and it can't create a mapping on the NAT64 (CGN) -- because
the CGN is going to make a dynamic mapping when it sees a UDP, TCP,
or ICMP packet from the subscriber.

> 	deterministic (including 4rd, Dual-IVI, and draft-ymbk-aplus-p).
> 
> 
> By the way, I would say you are missing one early draft:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-murakami-softwire-4v6-translation-00
> which is align with 4rd  about 4v6 translation which has been
> contributed by major operators which is also align with NAT64
> deployment.

Sorry.

-d


> -Hui
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	A stateful CGN, as commonly deployed, is not deterministic.
> 
> 	However -- and this is my point in this email -- a stateful CGN
> 	can be configured and deployed so that it deterministically maps
> 	traffic.  That is, it can function very much like A+P/4rd/Dual-
> IVI
> 	so that port "N" from subscriber "A" is always mapped to public
> 	port "Z" on IPv4 address "Y".  We could have the CPE know about
> 	that fixed mapping using the same DHCP options that A+P/4rd/
> 	Dual-IVI would use, or use PCP, or use some other protocol.
> 
> 	-d
> 
> 
> 	> I would assume softwires follows these same IETF guidelines and
> 	> therefore is
> 	> now focusing solely on stateless approaches(?). If the IETF
> opinion has
> 	> changed so that also stateful double translation solutions are
> now ok
> 	> for
> 	> IETF, then that should perhaps be reflected in this document as
> well.
> 	>
> 	> Unfortunately, I did not have chance to go to softwires
> interim, but
> 	> please
> 	> let us know if the discussions there impact also the quoted
> 	> recommendation.
> 	>
> 	> Best regards,
> 	>
> 	>       Teemu
> 	>
> 	> > -----Original Message-----
> 	> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:behave-
> [e-mail]] On
> 	> > Behalf Of ext Satoru Matsushima
> 	> > Sent: 13. syyskuuta 2011 06:51
> 	> > To: [e-mail]
> 	> > Cc: [e-mail]; Satoru Matsushima
> 	> > Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-
> 06.txt>
> 	> (Dual
> 	> > Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)) to Proposed
> Standard
> 	> >
> 	> > The introduction in the draft says:
> 	> >
> 	> >
> 	> > >   IETF recommends using dual-stack or tunneling based
> solutions for
> 	> > >    IPv6 transition and specifically recommends against
> deployments
> 	> > >    utilizing double protocol translation.  Use of BIH
> together with
> 	> a
> 	> > >    NAT64 is NOT RECOMMENDED [RFC6180].
> 	> > >
> 	> >
> 	> >
> 	> > This statement makes a strong obstacle when we develop
> stateless
> 	> solution
> 	> > with translation in softwires wg.
> 	> > I think that it is still remained a room to make decision
> whether
> 	> removing
> 	> the
> 	> > statement or remaining it.
> 	> > The discussion which we'll have in the softwires interim
> meeting
> 	> would be
> 	> > helpful to decide it.
> 	> >
> 	> > Best regards,
> 	> > --satoru
> 	> >
> 	> >
> 	> >
> 	> > On 2011/08/31, at 22:53, The IESG wrote:
> 	> >
> 	> > >
> 	> > > The IESG has received a request from the Behavior
> Engineering for
> 	> > > Hindrance Avoidance WG (behave) to consider the following
> document:
> 	> > > - 'Dual Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)'
> 	> > >  <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06.txt> as a Proposed Standard
> 	> > >
> 	> > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks,
> and
> 	> solicits
> 	> > > final comments on this action. Please send substantive
> comments to
> 	> the
> 	> > > [e-mail] mailing lists by 2011-09-14. Exceptionally,
> comments
> 	> may
> 	> > > be sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please
> retain the
> 	> > > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 	> > >
> 	> > > Abstract
> 	> > >
> 	> > >
> 	> > >   Bump-In-the-Host (BIH) is a host-based IPv4 to IPv6
> protocol
> 	> > >   translation mechanism that allows a class of IPv4-only
> 	> applications
> 	> > >   that work through NATs to communicate with IPv6-only
> peers.  The
> 	> host
> 	> > >   on which applications are running may be connected to
> IPv6-only
> 	> or
> 	> > >   dual-stack access networks.  BIH hides IPv6 and makes the
> IPv4-
> 	> only
> 	> > >   applications think they are talking with IPv4 peers by
> local
> 	> > >   synthesis of IPv4 addresses.  This draft obsoletes RFC
> 2767 and
> 	> RFC
> 	> > >   3338.
> 	> > >
> 	> > >
> 	> > >
> 	> > >
> 	> > > The file can be obtained via
> 	> > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih/
> 	> > >
> 	> > > IESG discussion can be tracked via
> 	> > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih/
> 	> > >
> 	> > >
> 	> > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-
> D.
> 	> > >
> 	> > >
> 	> > > _______________________________________________
> 	> > > Behave mailing list
> 	> > > [e-mail]
> 	> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
> 	> >
> 	> > _______________________________________________
> 	> > Behave mailing list
> 	> > [e-mail]
> 	> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
> 
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	Behave mailing list
> 	[e-mail]
> 	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
> 
>