IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-nat64-deployment-02 comments

"xiechf.bri@chinatelecom.cn" <xiechf.bri@chinatelecom.cn> Mon, 16 July 2018 01:53 UTC

Return-Path: <xiechf.bri@chinatelecom.cn>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B591292AD for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jul 2018 18:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 wyx8egahmhp2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Jul 2018 18:53:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chinatelecom.cn (prt-mail.chinatelecom.cn [42.123.76.221]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF29C130E53 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Jul 2018 18:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
HMM_SOURCE_IP: 172.18.0.48:24798.487009899
HMM_ATTACHE_NUM: 0000
HMM_SOURCE_TYPE: SMTP
Received: from clientip-219.142.69.78 (unknown [172.18.0.48]) by chinatelecom.cn (HERMES) with SMTP id B61C828008C; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 09:52:59 +0800 (CST)
Received: from DANGMM9A10 ([219.142.69.78]) by App0024 with ESMTP id 940ca81b-f9a2-4d3c-94d3-3c5840f6a281 for fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com; Mon Jul 16 09:53:12 2018
X-filter-score: filter<0>
X-Real-From: xiechf.bri@chinatelecom.cn
X-Receive-IP: 219.142.69.78
X-MEDUSA-Status: 0
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 09:52:51 +0800
From: "xiechf.bri@chinatelecom.cn" <xiechf.bri@chinatelecom.cn>
To: "fredbaker.ietf" <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "nick.heatley@bt.com" <nick.heatley@bt.com>, v6ops <v6ops@ietf.org>, KOSSUT Tomasz O-PL <tomasz.kossut@orange.com>
References: <CAD6AjGQqaQumYyBPVG6qkc9cs+jSGFKgUnGHkMfJmtes5Fk47g@mail.gmail.com>, <AD5D4A8E-8A02-463B-A222-3D32A6235DF4@gmail.com>, <CAD6AjGQsDq1ELdZPnaAtbZPq5SZoXbD--W5JS5tkN63J1D=W9g@mail.gmail.com>, <2F5CCC76-4364-4B66-B956-199969CFFCB4@isc.org>, <LO1P123MB009802AF44568758A8A3ECB4EA410@LO1P123MB0098.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>, <3fa26b65c7c64eada0ae04caa0a94ddf@orange.com>, <20180712130103.GQ11393@Space.Net>, <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302DF599FE@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>, <2B33FCAF-C612-45FC-AA9F-7F087F164937@cisco.com>, <BA45FF0F-D492-43BF-A56F-6155A7F6B962@gmail.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7, 2, 8, 379[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2018071609524852778154@chinatelecom.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart402388673245_=----"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/6_UOgpaG2YHjbb1hQa8JgHMcAuo>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-nat64-deployment-02 comments
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 01:53:25 -0000

One of the debate about NAT64 is that it will slow down the transition process of IPv6, for it allow the existance of IPv4, especially in the content side, the OTT, especially smaller ones,  will have less incentive to move to IPv6. I do not mean that this point is right,  but this draft should give some explanation or clarification to this issue.

Thank you!
Chongfeng



xiechf.bri@chinatelecom.cn
 
From: Fred Baker
Date: 2018-07-13 02:24
To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
CC: nick.heatley@bt.com; v6ops@ietf.org; KOSSUT Tomasz O-PL
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-nat64-deployment-02 comments
 
 
> On Jul 12, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) <rajiva=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> A-AAAA address synthesis without DNS64 usage??
 
As described in RFC 7050/7051? Why not?
 
 
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email