IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] Host based translation: v4-v6

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Thu, 03 December 2009 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: softwires@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C5F128C165 for <softwires@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 06:25:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.504
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.096, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qAw+mJj+fVnG for <softwires@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 06:25:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9247B28C159 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 06:25:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ringo.viagenie.ca (ringo.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000::67]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2002021BA8; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 09:25:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4B17CA51.3020403@viagenie.ca>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:25:21 -0500
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20090922 Fedora/3.0-3.9.b4.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0b4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Zhen Cao <caozhenpku@gmail.com>
References: <C73A80AA.3978%sgundave@cisco.com> <4B154549.4060101@viagenie.ca> <a7c8d0a30912030610pfd42f2dwd289a496912404a5@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a7c8d0a30912030610pfd42f2dwd289a496912404a5@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: softwires <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Host based translation: v4-v6
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:25:31 -0000

Zhen Cao wrote, on 2009-12-03 09:10:
>> New "IPv6 apps" are usually not IPv6-only. They are version-independent. See
>> e.g. RFC4038. So your future app will try IPv4 if it cannot get IPv6
>> connectivity. Which, it seems to me, would make case 4 fold into case 2.
> 
> Hi Simon, I checked 4038 and found it is informational. And I do not
> think applications developers will indeed follow this.

The fact that it is information is irrelevant. This is how applications are
being developed *right now*. We have experience with this, having ported many
applications to IPv6. This method is taught in seminars, books, etc. There is no
speculation here.

> For example,
> RFC4294 defines IPsec as a MUST for IPv6 node, but from our equipment
> test, we found this is a myth.

How is IPsec relevant to an application?

As far as I know, the IPsec API is still in early stages:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-btns-c-api-04
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mglt-btns-ipsec-api-requirements-00

Simon
-- 
DNS64 open-source   --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server    --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
vCard 4.0           --> http://www.vcarddav.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email