Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg!
Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Tue, 07 October 2008 17:27 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 854B93A6821; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:27:02 -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 7A19E3A6821 for <v4v6interim@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 WSR8d0y5WQZV for <v4v6interim@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72C503A67F3 for <v4v6interim@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,373,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="93057308"
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Oct 2008 17:26:25 +0000
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m97HQPOQ028161; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:26:25 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m97HQPRC004623; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:26:25 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:26:24 -0700
Received: from stealth-10-32-244-219.cisco.com ([10.32.244.219]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:26:24 -0700
Message-Id: <7E414550-E1C7-46BB-A7AD-D4F128903046@cisco.com>
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <732E532B-97C7-465C-BBE0-FD1B442DB21E@muada.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:26:23 -0700
References: <732E532B-97C7-465C-BBE0-FD1B442DB21E@muada.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Oct 2008 17:26:24.0336 (UTC) FILETIME=[D2822500:01C928A1]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2735; t=1223400385; x=1224264385; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20<fred@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[v4v6interim]=20You=20have=20been=20dug g! |Sender:=20; bh=yYpyVXt7W0u+lVb7HUJ1smOEeka12h1QH5QhACPP8B4=; b=EDlh1t5t3FOz4SfBsVRgLsidJM/724AyleKnIcX+t/zUwT8psteD6szgRV ejsEdAstnVRHkPQlC6TyhKp0570dp2xZrzpijF9l3I18mRZ6GLp/o3bNnaTB UFmzjEVtVj;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
Cc: v4v6interim@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg!
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 Oct 7, 2008, at 6:46 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > http://digg.com/tech_news/IETF_working_on_making_IPv6_and_IPv4_talk_to_each_other Thanks. Good article. I think the title is amusing; one would think that there was no prior work on making IPv4 and IPv6 talk with each other. But as you point out, there of course has been. Let me comment on your comments re IVI: > Finally, there is a solution named IVI (IV and VI, get it?) which > updates NAT-PT but also creates a direct, SIIT-like mapping between > certain IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. Unfortunately, this requires some > un-IPv6 like configuration on the IPv6 side, so it's not obvious to > me how this is useful. But apparently, IVI has been in use in China > for two years. What does it mean to be "IPv6-like"? Looking through RFCs 1884 (2.4.4), 2373 (2.5.4), 3513 (2.5.5), 4291 (2.5.5), and 2765 (2.1), and additionally looking at NAT64 (section 5.1), the addressing architecture has always had in it some form of address that embeds IPv4 into an IPv6 address. None of those memos have discussed how that was allocated or how a host was supposed to get them; the one thing that has been perfectly clear throughout is that they were not allocated by SLACK - they would have to be manually assigned or automatically assign via the mechanisms we use for IPv4 address allocation, probably using DHCP to communicate them to the host and either Dynamic DNS or manual DNS management to associate them with names. The one point of disagreement that I have had with Marcello's Pref64::/96 characterization is that it does something that RFC 4291 says to not do. If we have a prefix whose left-most bits are not 000, we are supposed to reserve the right-most 64 bits for host identifier and contain the routing prefix in the left-most 64 bits; RFC 4291 makes that clear in section 2.5.1, 2.5.4, 2.5.6, and 2.5.7. As such, neglecting the question of using the 0::ffff:a.b.c.d, 0::0:a.b.c.d, or 0::ffff:0:a.b.c.d forms, if I have a prefix assigned by the network operator, the address architecture says that I would have to treat all Pref64::a.b.c.d routes as host routes. Tell me that this is not what you're hoping for in an IPv6 address? What CERNET has done is define an address that maps to RFC 4291's architecture, allows them to (within that architecture) subnet IPv4- mapped addresses in the IPv6 domain, and use the mapping effectively in routing. If there is anything that I would hope was IPv6-like, it would have those characteristics. All you do is crab; you don't like it, but you don't give a technical reason to not like it. What's your point? _______________________________________________ v4v6interim mailing list v4v6interim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim
- [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Ed Jankiewicz
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Fred Baker
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Rémi Després
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Turchanyi Geza
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Rémi Després
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Randy Bush
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Dan Wing
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Lars Eggert
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Lars Eggert
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Lars Eggert
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Dan Wing
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Dan Wing
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Lars Eggert
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Fred Baker
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Fred Baker
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Ralph Droms
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! TJ
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Fred Baker
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg! Iljitsch van Beijnum