Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg!

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 13, 2008, at 5:42 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> On 7 okt 2008, at 19:26, Fred Baker wrote:
>
>> What does it mean to be "IPv6-like"?
>
> That everything happens mostly automatic and is easy otherwise. For  
> instance, in IPv4 you have to think about how big each subnet is. In  
> IPv6 you don't.

I disagree. The discussion of /48 vs /56 vs /60 vs /64 comes to mind.  
And btw this is about a IPv4 address, like NAT64 etc are. You make  
relatively positive statements about the other options and dump on one  
that has the same strengths and weaknesses.

> The IVI mapping means that at the very least a special subnet has to  
> be created for every IPv4-reachable host. The suggestion of having  
> non-/64 subnets and DHCPv6 is very problematic because DHCPv6  
> doesn't know about subnet prefix lengths.


we have a way to assign a prefix using DHCP. You're telling me it  
doesn't know the prefix length? If so, it's broken. I haven't read  
that spec; remind me which it is?

And yes, regardless of the address format used - even SLACK, for that  
matter - one has to either inject a host route into routing or inject  
a prefix into routing. That's how routing works. The only way we can  
avoid that is to put every mapped-address host on a LAN shared with  
the translator. Bzzt. That doesn't scale.

> The situation where a static mapping is set up means that the  
> configuration can be limited to the translation box, this simply  
> makes much more sense on every level.

Actually, not so. And this differs from NAT64, which you spoke  
positively about, in what way?
_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim