IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] (no subject)

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Thu, 23 September 2010 09:51 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80FD43A6B53; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 02:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.395
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.395 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.204, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 FFrAIknvlUI9; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 02:51:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABA873A6957; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 02:51:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rmac.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1OyiTJ-000FdR-5m; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:52:09 +0000
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 05:52:08 -0400
Message-ID: <m2sk10iy7r.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1OybhE-000LHx-15@psg.com>
References: <E1OybhE-000LHx-15@psg.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, behave@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] (no subject)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:51:43 -0000

>> Cameron, NAT64 also requires ALGs.
> No, only for protocols that don't do their own NAT traversal.

this is engineering, not marketing.  the answer is

  yes, for protocols which do not do their own nat traversal

which is a non-trivial set

> FTP is a special case

and there are others, though many not as bad as ftp

i need nat64, but i need one where the difficulties are not glossed
over, please.

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email