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

James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com> Tue, 24 March 2015 15:07 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@nestlabs.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 135611A87E0 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 08:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 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] 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 9udDYpYrP74A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 08:06:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x233.google.com (mail-ob0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::233]) (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 034311A87DF for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 08:06:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obdfc2 with SMTP id fc2so149443642obd.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 08:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nestlabs.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=ChmJLsUHgL9PhM5S6KCmm+y5pdWvL8elc6KmyflneIQ=; b=TuCFyOB7mzr8K5FAI6FF/6WhMR5UMlsvv4a2sNrCcTt12K4rbwVAfOjqqS46KZo4kr TCjQ0diT24Bb7pymM3aekezyRAIgZ6UGwnakPtKvIaP/u8s7Lgx1UGRL5a5dY3YjOQKl 0YOtpn6KYLceEnnvOlDV/8SWnQu74ONZgSdU0=
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:content-type; bh=ChmJLsUHgL9PhM5S6KCmm+y5pdWvL8elc6KmyflneIQ=; b=nAOGVHEXTMTEd0P1YvZN0ek5SDDqZG9IX+hbwvLioFlrXdtrAbfY+k0MLozQ7+OBLY 4QeC8byc6JinhZkkOnV9Cr9gN/Ch1qcNLrEGAFjZh2+b9noqg+J+00uiagek8gwa5y68 tPnAcOtCpY8MlhdSBvjcUA7J8y3/tpNMqX4t4NfXUnov9kMEjcvOJtir3QIIgCHuapTf LO5A1JR7fG7OsxDsuv5+gZ+HTvDUvRQBqlWAIk3HcIuywLCGo/FcYLfGBlE0m7VriBpW 50STJLixebt3xe2nLxw/J1089bqDm5U964mUuRsJkwHpV+GTCiWU1N5M+xYzedBJWYyr 5G9A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkT+9QYLtnvEgmmxEO4ROmheXcm6PnYMFGPwuNUmRN8Db6yMO+sq0AKuXja5zIWWqsyZjXR
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.205.146 with SMTP id d140mr3401134oig.35.1427209609502; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 08:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.150.2 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 08:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3Fhnx3XaXouK57gupGOzodKGb0quhQxaf76NjWxSp3WA@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>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 10:06:49 -0500
Message-ID: <CADhXe51MUB-czeCtpc63E0cHPpb_39Vv0o2Y57EVU2w_makP5Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>
To: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1134e69acb802105120a2161"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/3LLsphDB4ZD5O_LAV8tythySNYE>
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 15:07:01 -0000

On the other hand, I would be disappointed if such a consensus were to
emerge. It would mean that we would never be able to sunset IPv4, and as an
endpoint software developer, if every host I want to deploy on has a CLAT
provided by the system, then I'd observe that my incentives to stop writing
IPv4-only software logic would evaporate for all practical purposes.

I expect my opposition would be trammeled by bulldozers, but I would oppose.

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:

> 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?
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>


-- 
james woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>
Nest Labs, Communications Engineering