IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth researching？

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Tue, 03 May 2011 05:30 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E00DE06F1; Mon, 2 May 2011 22:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.233
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.086, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TUQlv-ZCjZWD; Mon, 2 May 2011 22:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35809E069C; Mon, 2 May 2011 22:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; l=2613; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1304400613; x=1305610213; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date: message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iTM0l96rYG+m3gGEc99R2t8aDOGl6cEPSmIgCR32HG8=; b=BdWoPHyWKBStKd7KJMdiEoXnDAM3wGzv1d8Txh0rzp4AnmOS+xOKoia/ DdtrDDhkYQj2N7++xMWqyzjFV7Doa43B+UxgHay+1ZARQu2fENAQsHSYa b1CWPoU3MHpWXBKl/qtLdnRyz5dMZqvPdBPDtmmau8n9TQLg5beI1hphv s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjsBAMORv02rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbACEUZM1gWOMJ3eIcp8qi2WQaoEqg1WBAQSGDpcz
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,307,1301875200"; d="scan'208";a="307040752"
Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 May 2011 05:29:17 +0000
Received: from dwingWS ([10.32.240.194]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p435TH6m007320; Tue, 3 May 2011 05:29:17 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Behcet Sarikaya' <sarikaya@ieee.org>, 'Iljitsch van Beijnum' <iljitsch@muada.com>, 'buptnoc' <buptnoc@gmail.com>
References: <4DB95962.5090407@gmail.com> <EA2B6487-5506-4FC0-9124-61CF6AD86F82@muada.com> <192669.64705.qm@web111411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <192669.64705.qm@web111411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 22:29:17 -0700
Message-ID: <01df01cc0953$0c23a560$246af020$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcwI3C+FjgR2wVypQceDg2U5kI+1sQAdXdQw
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: softwires@ietf.org, behave@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth researching？
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 05:30:14 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: behave-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:behave-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 8:18 AM
> To: Iljitsch van Beijnum; buptnoc
> Cc: softwires@ietf.org; behave@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth researching？
> 
> This is good point.
> But maybe this should be discussed in Softwires list.

NAT46 is in scope of BEHAVE, and is not in scope of SOFTWIRE.  The
BEHAVE charter is clear on that.

But I have not yet understood how or where we would see an IPv4-only
client needing to access an IPv6-only server (that is, a server
with only an IPv6 address).

-d

> Regards,
> 
> Behcet
> 
> > On 28 apr 2011, at 14:11, buptnoc wrote:
> 
> >
> > >     As described  in draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-10#section-
> 2.4 ， we
> >need nat46 translator.
> >
> > >     But, do we really need this scenario？Is it worth to  deploy
> this
> >scenario?
> >
> > >     In fact, this scenario appears  when we have v4-only client and
> v6-only
> >servers
> >
> > My opinion is: no, this  is not worth the trouble. We know that NAT46
> is a hard
> >problem, and it's  unlikely a solution would be very robust. Because
> of lack of
> >IPv4 addresses, a  relatively small pool of v4 addresses would have to
> map to
> >all possible v6  addresses, which means that the mappings have to be
> highly
> >dynamic. But  addresses are cached in many places, including often for
> a long
> >time in  applications. Having different applications react differently
> to NAT46
> >would be  a big deployment problem.
> >
> > I would recommend (apart from upgrading to  IPv6) deploying HTTP and
> HTTPS
> >proxies, as those will allow HTTP and HTTPS from  IPv4-only clients to
> IPv6-only
> >servers (or the other way around!) and in  principle, it's possible to
> modify
> >any TCP-based application to work through an  HTTPS proxy, as those
> are
> >basically TCP relays.
> >
> > It should be possible to  make an automatic proxy configuration so
> that a
> >browser only uses the proxy to  reach IPv6 destinations and connects
> to IPv4
> >destinations directly. However, I  haven't tried this myself  yet.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Behave  mailing list
> > Behave@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> Behave@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email