[v6ops] summary of docs related to NAT64 - status

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

Someone asked me in pvt  if there is a summary of the NAT64 and related docs that we are advancing to different status. It has been presented in a couple of recents meetings, but I’ve prepared a summary.

1) RFC7757 (Explicit Address Mappings for Stateless IP/ICMP Translation), it was PS. Has been advanced to IS (STD103). 2026-02-03.

2) RFC7755 (SIIT-DC: Stateless IP/ICMP Translation for IPv6 Data Center Environments), it was Informational. Has been advanced to PS. 2026-02-02. It can be further advanced to IS after 6 months (I plan to do so if the WG agree).

3) RFC7756 (Stateless IP/ICMP Translation for IPv6 Internet Data Center Environments (SIIT-DC): Dual Translation Mode), it was Informational. Has been advanced to PS. 2026-02-02. It can be further advanced to IS after 6 months (I plan to do so if the WG agree).

4) RFC6146 (Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers), it is PS. The WG adopted a document to advance it to IS (draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6146-bis). We have a Last Call until early next week.

********** If you support it, please replay to: **********
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/sZnngOwfi5iSpYHj1GvGvYKqECY/. If you have any objections, or further inputs, please, provide them ASAP.

5) RFC7915 (IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm), it is PS. The WG already adopted draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7915-bis, but I’m holding it because draft-ietf-v6ops-icmpext-xlat-v6only-source. Will need a new vs before advancing it to IS, and for that we may need to wait 6 months.

6) RFC6052 (IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators), it is PS. It is being updated by draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-wkp-1918. I think, because actual implementations already follow what draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-wkp-1918 is suggesting, don’t look to me as an “actual” protocol change, I will prepare an implementation status and ask the original authors if they want to advance it to IS, or will do it myself. We may need to wait 6 months for that after publication of draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-wkp-1918.

7) RFC6877 (464XLAT: Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation). It is Informational. Because we have draft-ietf-v6ops-claton as PS, the WG considered (Dublin meeting if I recall correctly), that we don’t need to advance RFC6877. I will suggest that draft-ietf-v6ops-claton could be further advanced to IS after a while.

8) RFC7050/8880 (Discovery of the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis/Special Use Domain Name 'ipv4only.arpa'), it is PS. In my opinion in general is not being implemented in networks. Not confirmed if implemented in hosts and what happens if hosts or the network don’t properly implement it. I tend to think, based on experience, that the WKP is being used by default in those cases. Information requested in pvt to Apple/Android, so a better informed decision could be made. Asked v6ops folks to do an experiment and report to me, so I can summarize it. RFC9872 (Recommendations for Discovering IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address
Synthesis) already recommends using RFC8781 (Discovering PREF64 in Router Advertisements). Somehow tied to the discussion of RFC6147.

9) RFC6147 (DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers), it is PS. Discussion in dnsop. I think that at least some deployment considerations needs to be added, but no changes to the actual protocol, then it could be advanced to IS. I’ve already a draft ready, pending on the dnsop discussion, but not yet submitted. This draft already addresses the existing errata, which doesn’t change the protocol. Also include the implementation report, updated references, etc.


Regards,
Jordi

@jordipalet



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.