IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Fri, 03 April 2015 20:57 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 A21C01A19E3 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 13:57:45 -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 NO7pTabnztQU for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 13:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x230.google.com (mail-ig0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230]) (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 738E21A0217 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 13:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igcau2 with SMTP id au2so107281311igc.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=I99vPwyYXwQ3dzNwY+9TBTUzM17wzrIoMBSKdRUa2/k=; b=OC8GADUzDcRiWM6rL7PQbUEhTML3TFV95F3fj+Dundl1jNzFKjtwkHYzdL6nC2zFKX SETDzlC8V/BjJesGVAj0FezOx3zuY2Zd8b7cWf7oidRUju4WL+MT+spOUQ3ji1/Qpkiy C1+2ejymMH1C4JYxhtSgEyJTXHkkg7RBIVbFBgmtClcCd5jtdCDHOhebGE3596Jogsp/ 4fpqTv7LbNk3ADUxjmzxtvoJzUaJLgqUNCYq8BGaCDN+OPPTw+d1lPoUdeJHSm+Z5b5C 52Schf+LCk9v6erK/GJ63AOW33Lxa9T10SWfo4wyZoOSrDzL7huWg0Dbj2c5anOAbWLh xeJA==
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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=I99vPwyYXwQ3dzNwY+9TBTUzM17wzrIoMBSKdRUa2/k=; b=juqpShqVf6YRQqdL9ekdM5Fb4UocftKgtuwtcWFvYv8roS6Rum853/rkGNfOJ2Q3v3 aXlMygSaLDyd7kbxLnPpIJnZWaCq6phEpDdO7UIF1tW64JF6Zz6JWqQ9iluLQQs/ytvL pwb4mOtd3qYDkaZV39/GjTA3oRHxM9mzqVAumUEats0k2fUJ30nJMglt74uGPJCLOHIi Dqiiq5sfI+UBZByIjxdYXbO8DKowTEa9xsIR0INVR1yuDVBPcelK4OFXy4tLidQMd6fX uF9+1l7phL/VBYEkiphRSpxnDJUGylXmQ2Elb9D7NEZVNf1IFutMQV06mXPMhDdXofEv w98g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn/IQltYkikdFVyS3h85R9x/jN522aWvlzFKd/+viFvw/Zj/IkeJM2TaX2TVDmsVeNpxFMP
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.34.210 with SMTP id i201mr6552723ioi.1.1428094663839; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.195.75 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 13:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.195.75 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 13:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADhXe51MjVbsW512dSJqFpQUH44ZLazh=gkwD0mWwjw3=wqtUw@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> <CAKD1Yr3Fhnx3XaXouK57gupGOzodKGb0quhQxaf76NjWxSp3WA@mail.gmail.com> <CADhXe51MUB-czeCtpc63E0cHPpb_39Vv0o2Y57EVU2w_makP5Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTcKgK8W+VB1H5EQpHaYiKVYXqOz_2RS-w_CiTf9kL2CQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADhXe530+OVZrFZVaYh1-zoRDvJhUd0rf4sx6a2nO8SvKmm6zg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPi140PQ+TF0rED_bQPeS=Fj415qt0-zE2RdGnEL34PAzHyx6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTjXAeMF6pw5MO2Jrf9B8LJ48D3m1YTVkdBe=_OHjtroQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADhXe51TCqU2eMP4LS3DooZxQDAPD95OVJDXbiU7qvuvKCMq+w@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2=zc57+pOA9TFs+0azw0ZR1g67+08T=9eZPHjGXBvgFQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADhXe53T_30pj7xxwNs=mWEnd=do6oiq3KgN=U-gHLrLF-gG7Q@mail.gmail.com> <D1441574.4C168%wesley.george@twcable.com> <CAD6AjGQrzoBJrqQfKO0N8Ji=oJ-ZP6Sn88sXf=opJ6bYVmTDZg@mail.gmail.com> <CADhXe51MjVbsW512dSJqFpQUH44ZLazh=gkwD0mWwjw3=wqtUw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 05:57:43 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr01qXwi=dN3Wdv1YPPDqCWG2nHyM=_Dhmh7BD+h6HsEwg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
To: James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114031a024f2790512d83364"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/1fAjaAxs8SDSzVcSAO6e-cVv21s>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
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: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 20:57:45 -0000

On 4 Apr 2015 3:08 am, "James Woodyatt" <jhw@nestlabs.com> wrote:

> That's an overly general statement, which is why I'm pushing back. A more
specific statement you could make is that the IPv4 programming interfaces
need to be supported on general-purpose multi-program hosts that operate on
IPv6-only networks which bear a strong resemblance to yours.

James,

what do you purpose as a better alternative?

Suppose that, as you say, not all popular OSes implement 464xlat. Aren't we
just changing the outcome from "we'll never get away from IPv4-only socket
calls" to "we'll never get away from running IPv4"? If so, how is that
better?

You could well argue that for as long as IPv4 is around, we'll never get
rid of IPv4 socket calls either, because it's impossible for anyone to
impose a "thou shalt not write an IPv4-only app" policy without placing
themselves at a competitive disadvantage.

Cheers,
Lorenzo

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email