Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Tue, 17 June 2008 13:01 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EB253A6A50 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 06:01:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 SLcN3V-KODEx for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 06:01:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6B383A68F5 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 06:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1K8an6-000PTq-7g for v6ops-data@psg.com; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:00:04 +0000
Received: from [2001:14b8:400::130] (helo=smtp.piuha.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <jari.arkko@piuha.net>) id 1K8amv-000PRM-29 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:59:56 +0000
Received: from smtp.piuha.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A1A0198671; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:59:51 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by smtp.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F60219866A; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:59:51 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <4857B56C.6020207@piuha.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:00:28 +0300
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080505)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>
CC: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario
References: <C47CE31D.12701%alain_durand@cable.comcast.com> <4857793F.6020808@free.fr> <485782C3.8090309@piuha.net> <038FB0D9-E5F8-42F1-8F55-16EB3962EB72@muada.com> <4857A458.6070104@piuha.net> <4857AF96.6080806@free.fr>
In-Reply-To: <4857AF96.6080806@free.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>
Remi, > In this respect, The APBP-E2E scenario of draft-despres-v6ops-apbp-00 > sec. 5.2 goes *one step further* than Tunnel-to-NAT. > > When a (modified) dual stack client connects to a v4-only server: > - v4 packets are unchanged E2E. > - The (dual stack) client application sees its public v4 address, so > that no NAT is needed. > > It then seems that, if and when time comes to discuss the APBP > protocol, after the problem statement, Softwires would be the right > place. Does APBP involve host changes? The work put to SOFTWIRE is a very specific task: cross the v6-only cloud using tunneling, allow optional fairly standard NATting at the other side to handle overlapping RFC1918 space, no changes at all in the subscriber sites or hosts. That WG has a lot of expertise in getting tunneling like this to work. However, generally speaking other protocol work will go elsewhere, as soon as we know what that work is. The reason why SOFTWIRE is having a head start is that they are attacking a separable, reasonably well understood part of the overall space that fits the profile of an existing WG. We are looking at rechartering BEHAVE for the rest of the work. Jari
- Tunnel-to-NAT scenario Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario Alain Durand
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario Alain Durand
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario Alain Durand
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario Rémi Després
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario Rémi Després
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario Jari Arkko
- 464 scanarios - identifying the variety Rémi Després
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario Jari Arkko
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario Rémi Després
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario Jari Arkko
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario Remi Denis-Courmont
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario Rémi Després
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario Jari Arkko
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario Rémi Després
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario Rémi Denis-Courmont
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario Brian E Carpenter