Re: [v4tov6transition] [BEHAVE] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC

YangGL 写道:
> Sure, dIVI does not require ALG, because it work like a tunnel technology in
> the scenarios of IPv4-IPv6-IPv4. Hosts in the dIVI scenarios are also
> dual-stack, not IPv6-only.
>   

If dIVI is implemented in host, then the host is IPv6 single stack
connecting to the IPv6-only network. The sockets API is dual stack for
the applications running in the host.

regards,

xing

>
> Best regards,
> Yang Guoliang
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xing Li [mailto:xing@cernet.edu.cn] 
> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 9:53 PM
> To: YangGL
> Cc: 'Fred Baker'; 'Behave WG'; 'huang cancan'; 'Yiu L. Lee'; 'IPv6 v6ops';
> v4tov6transition@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition]
> draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC
>
> YangGL 写道:
>   
>> Sorry, please let me emphasize my point again: I tested a deprecated
>>     
> NAT-PT
>   
>> not because there isn't any stateless or stateful implementation (I know
>> about IVI). Reasons are as below:
>> 1. On the basis of theoretical analysis, IPv4 address embedded in payload
>>     
> is
>   
>> a big problem to all kind of v6-v4 translation. At this point, I think
>>     
> there
>   
>> is no big difference between NAT-PT and later technology.
>>   
>>     
>
> IVI requires ALG, but dIVI (double IVI) does not require ALG. xing
>
>   
>> 2. There is a Juniper firewall in my lab, it can support NAT-PT. So I can
>> carry on easily.
>> I don't want to argue again. Since many people question my test result, I
>>     
> am
>   
>> going to do it again, welcome everybody to work with us, and Fred, please
>> give me the typical product list.
>> Please notice that the next test isn't an authentication entering China
>> telecom's network, just for study.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Yang Guoliang
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] 
>> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 1:14 AM
>> To: YangGL
>> Cc: Yiu L. Lee; huang cancan; IPv6 v6ops; v4tov6transition@ietf.org; Kurt
>> Erik Lindqvist; Behave WG
>> Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines
>>     
> WGLC
>   
>> So you tested one implementation, one that uses a technology that the IETF
>> has deprecated (NAT-PT), and did not test the technology that has been
>> discussed in the behave working group under the name NAT64 (which is also
>>     
> a
>   
>> stateful model). On the basis of testing one vendor's implementation of
>>     
> the
>   
>> deprecated procedure, you assert that there is no implementation of the
>> behave technology that uses the stateless mode, and the stateful mode of
>>     
> the
>   
>> behave technology that you didn't test either "doesn't work".
>>
>> Did I get that right?
>>
>> On Sep 2, 2010, at 2:33 AM, YangGL wrote:
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> Hi Fred,
>>> The device in my NAT64 tests was NAT-PT from Juniper, it is stateful.
>>> Based on my knowledge of IPv4/IPv6 translation, the major differences
>>>     
>>>       
>> between stateful and stateless are bidirection and scalability. There are
>> similar impact to applications. My test goal is finding out the impact to
>> applications caused by IPv4/IPv6 translation, not whether a specific
>> translator work well. So I didn't test more products, also didn't run two
>> modes.
>>   
>>     
>>> There are two major reasons for failure in my tests:
>>> 1. The protocols can't work with IPv4/IPv6 translator, such as IM and
>>>       
> P2P.
>   
>>>     
>>>       
>> There are IPv4 addresses embedded in payload, NAT-PT can't translate.
>>   
>>     
>>> 2. The application programs are not designed for IPv6, such as some kind
>>>     
>>>       
>> of WEB browsers and Email clients. These programs can't work on the OS
>> without IPv4 address.
>>   
>>     
>>> So far I cannot find a stateless/stateful solution to solve the problems
>>>     
>>>       
>> as above.
>>   
>>     
>>> Best regards,
>>> Yang Guoliang
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] 
>>> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 2:09 PM
>>> To: YangGL
>>> Cc: Yiu L. Lee; huang cancan; IPv6 v6ops; v4tov6transition@ietf.org; Kurt
>>>     
>>>       
>> Erik Lindqvist; Behave WG
>>   
>>     
>>> Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines
>>>     
>>>       
>> WGLC
>>   
>>     
>>> </chair> <!-- v6ops -->
>>> <author> <!-- draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate -->
>>>
>>> May I ask a question?
>>>
>>> When you say you tested it with NAT64, what did you test with?
>>>
>>> There are two modes for translation between IPv4 and IPv6. The stateful
>>>     
>>>       
>> mode, described in draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful, is essentially
>> identical in function to IPv4/IPv4 NAT, and allows IPv6 systems to connect
>> to IPv4 systems but not the reverse. The stateless mode, described in
>> draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate, allows connections to be initiated in either
>> direction. The downside of the stateless mode is that it requires a direct
>> mapping between an IPv4 and an IPv6 address. The are two parts of a common
>> framework, use the same addressing plan, and the same DNS extension.
>>   
>>     
>>> Are you running both modes, or only the stateful mode? If you are only
>>>     
>>>       
>> running the stateful mode, that what you're reporting is what we have been
>> saying for some time it will behave like.
>>   
>>     
>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-address-format
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-address-format
>>>  "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", Congxiao Bao, Christian
>>>  Huitema, Marcelo Bagnulo, Mohammed Boucadair, Xing Li, 15-Aug-10,
>>>  <draft-ietf-behave-address-format-10.txt>
>>>
>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-dns64
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-dns64
>>>  "DNS64: DNS extensions for Network Address Translation from IPv6 Clients
>>>  to IPv4 Servers", Marcelo Bagnulo, Andrew Sullivan, Philip Matthews,
>>>  Iljitsch van Beijnum, 5-Jul-10, <draft-ietf-behave-dns64-10.txt>
>>>
>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework
>>>  "Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation", Fred Baker, Xing Li, Congxiao
>>>  Bao, Kevin Yin, 17-Aug-10, <draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-10.txt>
>>>
>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate
>>>  "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", Xing Li, Congxiao Bao, Fred Baker,
>>>  22-Aug-10, <draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-22.txt>
>>>
>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful
>>>  "Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
>>>  Clients to IPv4 Servers", Marcelo Bagnulo, Philip Matthews, Iljitsch van
>>>  Beijnum, 12-Jul-10, <draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-12.txt>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 28, 2010, at 5:40 PM, YangGL wrote:
>>>
>>>     
>>>       
>>>> Tests in my lab have proved that many popular applications cannot work
>>>>         
> on
>   
>>>>       
>>>>         
>> IPv6-only network with NAT64, such as IM, P2P, games, and part of video.
>>     
> WEB
>   
>> and part of mail (Outlook and Outlook express) are the only applications
>>     
> we
>   
>> can find working properly with NAT64. But there are more than 50% traffic
>>     
> is
>   
>> P2P, WEB traffic is less than 20% on CT’s network. I think it is not a
>>     
> good
>   
>> news to NAT64.
>>   
>>     
>>>> Tests also prove that almost all of popular applications on Internet can
>>>>       
>>>>         
>> work on IPv4-only network with single level and double level NAT44, such
>>     
> as
>   
>> WEB, mail, IM, P2P, games, video and etc.
>>   
>>     
>>>> NAT64 and NAT44 are similar in theory. But what make the difference of
>>>>       
>>>>         
>> application support? I think it should be timing. NAT44 appears ten years
>> ago. There are a few applications on internet at that time. Subsequent
>> applications, such as IM, P2P, were designed to work with NAT44. NAT64
>>     
> come
>   
>> after this popular applications, situation is totally different. If NAT64
>>     
> is
>   
>> deployed on commercial network now, CT’s network traffic will cut down
>>     
> 70%
>   
>> immediately, and most applications will release a new version for
>>     
> IPv6-only
>   
>> or NAT64 in the next one year. But it is not a good idea to providers.
>>   
>>     
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Yang Guoliang
>>>>
>>>> 发件人: v4tov6transition-bounces@ietf.org
>>>>       
>>>>         
>> [mailto:v4tov6transition-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Yiu L. Lee
>>   
>>     
>>>> 发送时间: 2010年8月25日 22:05
>>>> 收件人: huang cancan
>>>> 抄送: Kurt Erik Lindqvist; IPv6 v6ops; v4tov6transition@ietf.org
>>>> 主题: Re: [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC
>>>>
>>>> From user’s perspective, do they care IPv4 or IPv6? Most don’t. For
>>>>       
>>>>         
>> example: a casual web user wants to access his/her favorite IPv4-only
>> website. If his web client and PC support IPv6 and on an IPv6-only network
>> with NAT64, the web traffic will go through the NAT once. If his web
>>     
> client
>   
>> and PC support IPv4-only on an IPv4 network with NAT444, the web traffic
>> will go through the NAT twice. In the end, he/she still gets the same
>> content. From this perspective, both experience “could be” very similar.
>>     
>
>   
>>   
>>     
>>>> However, this use case is rather limited and not applicable to many
>>>>       
>>>>         
>> applications. This is why I said “could be”. Also, both Cameron and I
>> agree that this is easier to implement IPv6-only on mobile network than on
>> fixed network because mobile operators have more control over the devices
>> and apps. IMHO, it will take longer time for fixed network operators to
>> support NAT64 only solution in the network.
>>   
>>     
>>>> On 8/25/10 9:41 AM, "huang cancan" <cancanhuang110@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> well, I mean: why customer experience of IPv4-only + NAT444 could be the
>>>>       
>>>>         
>> same as IPv6-only + NAT64?
>>   
>>     
>>>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Yiu L. Lee <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
>>>>       
>>>>         
>> wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>>> In order to deploy IPv6-only + NAT64, the client and network must talk
>>>>       
>>>>         
>> IPv6. It also requires DNS64. These requirements are not needed for
>> IPv4-only + NAT444. From the deployment point of view, they are very
>> different technologies. 
>>   
>>     
>>>> On 8/25/10 7:13 AM, "huang cancan" <cancanhuang110@gmail.com
>>>>       
>>>>         
>> <http://cancanhuang110@gmail.com> > wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>>> hi,Yiu:
>>>>  As you mentioned below:
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>>>> All I am saying is the customer
>>>>> experience of IPv4-only + NAT444 could be the same as IPv6-only +
>>>>>           
> NAT64,
>   
>>>>>         
>>>>>           
>> but
>>   
>>     
>>>>> the technologies and plan to offer these service are very different.
>>>>>         
>>>>>           
>>>>  Do you have any test data to support this conclusion?
>>>>
>>>> Can-can Huang
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Yiu L. Lee <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com
>>>>       
>>>>         
>> <http://yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com> > wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>>>> Agreed.  The 2x cost is really just the packet core ... which is of
>>>>> course a lot of money to double for no tangible benefit ..... talk
>>>>> about no business case .... And, still have numbering issues, customer
>>>>> experience is the same as IPv4-only + NAT44 and approximately the same
>>>>> as IPv6-only + NAT64
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>           
>>>> Life cycle of mobile equipments could be every 2-3 years, but life cycle
>>>>       
>>>>         
>> of
>>   
>>     
>>>> consumer electronics could be 5+ years. Consider many large TVs with
>>>> Internet service selling today are still running IPv4-only, fixed line
>>>> operators must prepare to support them in foreseeable future.
>>>>
>>>> That said, I am not saying an operator must build a dual-stack core
>>>>       
>>>>         
>> network,
>>   
>>     
>>>> there are technologies such as DS-lite and Softwire Mesh available to
>>>>         
> run
>   
>>>>       
>>>>         
>> a
>>   
>>     
>>>> pure IPv6 core network with dual-stack edge. All I am saying is the
>>>>       
>>>>         
>> customer
>>   
>>     
>>>> experience of IPv4-only + NAT444 could be the same as IPv6-only + NAT64,
>>>>       
>>>>         
>> but
>>   
>>     
>>>> the technologies and plan to offer these service are very different.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> v4tov6transition mailing list
>>>> v4tov6transition@ietf.org <http://v4tov6transition@ietf.org> 
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> v4tov6transition mailing list
>>>> v4tov6transition@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition
>>>>       
>>>>         
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>   