IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v4v6interim] [46translation] [BEHAVE] Proposal for new BEHAVE charter

Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> Tue, 21 October 2008 10:33 UTC

Return-Path: <v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: v4v6interim-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v4v6interim-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84E413A6AB8; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 03:33:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: v4v6interim@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v4v6interim@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72F83A6B0B; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 03:33:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 R+U3UUY6sn3T; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 03:33:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sequoia.muada.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:1af8:2:5::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B040D3A6AB8; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 03:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2002:a375:3717:9:21b:63ff:fe02:3c13] ([IPv6:2002:a375:3717:9:21b:63ff:fe02:3c13]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m9LAXv9N013811 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:33:58 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com)
Message-Id: <9E0384AB-A20B-44E7-8575-9275101FF920@muada.com>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <B5A2E7E1-7FAE-48B6-85E2-B1300DF1458D@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:34:19 +0200
References: <48F8539D.90608@ericsson.com> <48FB9C5E.8070402@gmail.com> <3E041E8D-8539-4A16-9188-86A1DCEEE62B@muada.com> <200810201358.29295.remi.denis-courmont@nokia.com> <8E5328A8-4937-41A8-A650-204795E074D1@muada.com> <5B78195C-1318-4325-8F98-BC19F59E1532@cisco.com> <01462145-8E18-465A-8989-D1C98D421DED@muada.com> <B5A2E7E1-7FAE-48B6-85E2-B1300DF1458D@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
Cc: Behave WG <behave@ietf.org>, v4v6interim@ietf.org, 46Translation <46translation@employees.org>
Subject: Re: [v4v6interim] [46translation] [BEHAVE] Proposal for new BEHAVE charter
X-BeenThere: v4v6interim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of coexistence topics for the 01-Oct-2008 v4-v6 coexistence interim meeting <v4v6interim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim>, <mailto:v4v6interim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/v4v6interim>
List-Post: <mailto:v4v6interim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v4v6interim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim>, <mailto:v4v6interim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org

On 21 okt 2008, at 11:50, Fred Baker wrote:

> As to the rest of what you said, I'll agree with you that in a very  
> real sense that ship has sailed, and I'll point out that we run the  
> same protocols on IPv6 that we run on IPv4. If we have indeed made  
> the protocols NAT-accepting for IPv4, I'll bet they are NAT- 
> accepting on IPv6 as well.

If only things were this simple.

Many apps that break with NAT do referrals by IP address. So they must  
be updated to work with IPv6, and gain significant additional logic to  
work in a dual stack world. Things like STUN and ICE and their  
proprietary counterparts thus need to be reinvented/implemented for v6  
to make referrals work, and/or the UPnP/NAT-PMP protocols that open up  
ports in NAT devices must be recreated for IPv6 if port overloading  
NAT66s happen.

Today the routing people are complaining that the IPv6 builders didn't  
fix routing. I wonder if in 10 years the apps people are going to  
complain that we didn't fix NAT but just let the same thing happen as  
in IPv4 which BEHAVE has been trying to clean up.
_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
v4v6interim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email