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

This is good point.
But maybe this should be discussed in Softwires list.

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
> 