Re: [v6ops] The need for local-ipv4 socket transition solutions -- NAT64/DNS64 remains insufficient

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Tue, 24 March 2015 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DFED1A8734 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XOqgcQRapRVT for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22e.google.com (mail-ig0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FAB91A8738 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igbud6 with SMTP id ud6so72839314igb.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=5tClT7BemEHRtVadZu4ILwanKgQx591x7FUbgZgtnr0=; b=BW+hq1KvTULsQ0rYuCUODry9akki3qiULZJK04+f0P023zTgJ66f/Yu0ag/rThJvMT 5Fd11P4R1Y9iKxNyvw8CV9BK3KSkE1oDEVmjlkyHz1vCosOYp31m/UppPTPcGmrjoVYz FyHqk5SL8wcI/UjJpfum/mVJ/1H2s5+xBASD6MaFJCQn67VY/Vt195+MzOdu0sUy/xra OoLCiqhg4wrGHezeH/RhZdtaH4TwitOrJkzsfW5+uLxoY3U0H0zzKVS41X1RBRHxsAyy VOweJ1bSpc95YmZ1NXYZm2WmLm0fEVEGBr2j2l4jNUdhpL2izzWjDGZ5i8c111i9PlvX teSg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=5tClT7BemEHRtVadZu4ILwanKgQx591x7FUbgZgtnr0=; b=WL9J4vh5NP0QjQizzVNru+yJskoZSnOBOHDt7TqLel8t3hAjypvAdZUjFt49Iu+Er7 6Aida0xOMrPdW+RbJXT4LCTrAFC8K8DpTO8t6MSFCl3XmUDdeLriVshjjX1UTtameO9z PwOZ5P0aGtzu2KlR8IK03Hy4LnV4L5dO5+rbgxFPdDc/0WGQk5+EwZNkYN9OFpsRrQAA Avvl6PjUEdBfsAqLtDEOcWupJBiAVMk/sPv4whjVL+gmWliTaCrQZ+hf+gEzOw2OWcZt e2uvylvJF7NYtMHYwpCFTA7uk21gX9D9cIFrUjiR1CvpReknsogZKLBPZczTtd47e1oN Zlmw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkuboanSq4zICViEBBdLc4OoVn/MPfxVD89YhDG3JWap92WWGm7uzMtOlth55SNJ+Z62rXs
X-Received: by 10.43.94.70 with SMTP id bx6mr25773487icc.85.1427206405500; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.195.75 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGS-QMi+3oVGWDxnSMhEJH=VymwcF=PwKLdwFRxwHpp_-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD6AjGT-hG-uvRQvRosrZtfrf0Nb8ne9jy=tD9oh=5zNM42Xsg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1503200639340.20507@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20150320134204.32af9c67@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <A0BB7AD89EA705449C486BDB5FDCBC7B28518DD8@OPE10MB06.tp.gk.corp.tepenet> <550F1F1F.3060703@cernet.edu.cn> <CAD6AjGSxk-Hrf_NBOjpV-jvraG+xSA4p1j-AO+FQFcVGzuf1Lg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3ywVy_00GYuw4Eq6cW_ZeL16bxpquaWWDMgSz44LagAg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGS-QMi+3oVGWDxnSMhEJH=VymwcF=PwKLdwFRxwHpp_-Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:13:05 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr3Fhnx3XaXouK57gupGOzodKGb0quhQxaf76NjWxSp3WA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec5186f08d25cbd05120962ac"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/0RJWCEXXznBSTjUGUBS93n64NyY>
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>, Kossut Tomasz - Hurt <Tomasz.Kossut@orange.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] The need for local-ipv4 socket transition solutions -- NAT64/DNS64 remains insufficient
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:13:32 -0000

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Oh, I see why you started this thread now. Do you expect that the IETF
>> would be able to reach consensus on such a statement?
>>
>
> Yes. Are you in opposition?
>

Oh, of course not. I'm the maintainer of a popular 464xlat implementation,
remember?