[v4v6interim] nat-pt-replacement-comparison-02
"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Tue, 30 September 2008 03:01 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 5B45E3A689D; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:01:36 -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 9F3B13A689D for <v4v6interim@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 Oya1pWXZ0Xya for <v4v6interim@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF8FF3A67D0 for <v4v6interim@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,334,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="165433521"
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Sep 2008 03:01:45 +0000
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m8U31jXI008780; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:01:45 -0700
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.194]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m8U31jAq016870; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:01:45 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: v4v6interim@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:01:44 -0700
Message-ID: <07f501c922a8$df4040f0$c2f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: AckiqN74m5yWcSKkTsG4vi4bo13fTw==
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=977; t=1222743705; x=1223607705; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20<dwing@cisco.com> |Subject:=20nat-pt-replacement-comparison-02 |Sender:=20; bh=rxduMkQNLnx8yeetSgb4BRV8xmd+lYBw+bMrh8vSiOA=; b=XbQv/NXfYqyeDoRmLMjoojdvOGONRorxk/OkaOHt6r+bWlI412dkxoLGmF AJwLTDhCB4jmq20v7S9rD5O5/QP6W+kfakgfFzMGdonhJS/Nh8MUjdEwjYI/ nY1RPC8C9aoRM3zI9Oi102V2Dx8UBr6vWHG6uRuO7KlXpzrbfuvko=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; );
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:01:35 -0700
Subject: [v4v6interim] nat-pt-replacement-comparison-02
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-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org
I just posted draft-wing-nat-pt-replacement-comparison-02, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-nat-pt-replacement-comparison-02, which incorporates the following changes based on changes to the underlying documents. o Updated DS-Lite reference; no changes to text o Updated from APB-Revised to SAM; changed text (in the comparison document, the changes between APB-Revised and SAM were relatively minor) o Updated sNAT-PT reference; added description of IPv4-to-IPv6 1:N port mapping o Mentioned policing difficulties for shared addresses (DHCP snooping, ARP security, ingress filtering) o Discuss IPsec compatibility o Added explanation of how NAT444 can support IPv6 using Teredo For this version I did not have time for the authors of the underlying documents to review the comparison document -- so please accept my apologies if I summarized the new documents incorrectly, and send me changes. -d _______________________________________________ v4v6interim mailing list v4v6interim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim