IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info

Erik Kline <ek@google.com> Fri, 22 September 2017 07:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ek@google.com>
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 544C41342A8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 00:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 x0djvBwJyfmc for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 00:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22b.google.com (mail-wr0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22b]) (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 775311342A6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 00:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id l39so194587wrl.12 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 00:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=M0QnWPv/GivuAf1MhhwCfQRYb5BBhpOq0RrkuVUioIs=; b=awHeiKT9c6A0cgX+LQ5Ykk28rJaRD46ibPw7WKGYJtIV39/vHBoKPs9GD1FhHJhrZw kAa8aVblgBQvrzFEHEY0o7k8oAQWBjTSRVx9JsXP/HogQ5+i9BYgLTQXSgpjLpcQ9C/D X3rjId4AgDAhyvSVDx6Jx5YU5ynBYXIpoA4L8ybdHVgZMQnbU6J8P8c5KW1k5mguko0A bsMfcSBRjAmoT7GuhcaUnO4MyOTH5p1oSGlcJuBgxtl+9US8jc6YAhRn1TiuUJWPUIaW hK3Dy+RIfGh71yWsjj/s/VXkeyUiatUwnaxCDzjESBGY57wfBWXYL8d+Ycoqs89LDRVU fVyA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=M0QnWPv/GivuAf1MhhwCfQRYb5BBhpOq0RrkuVUioIs=; b=bTJ1DZoITseSVhZadPwi/ZRLmNMhVIa4HtUBZ7C6dIQ5wvirPvQkIhLakOx7ZLyT81 hqQktKWxTd/6YBgbiVQM8nXi5wHgANvA9FoSf2XW9XH83CpwdDk9X0mZT1M1xGWmwc2J qWBW70WsP0kpbTxp8nkOA50YN52UPzP5S5Uu8gtgsYJ7TrXIOVorRsxUL4PeB+NLZleF 62nKvTfb+JuEKOeYFFqCkFT3ejcfJw2X8LSahcy6i6HbtwMwmEM2BL4RpI4nnoQNJixC dIHXYrl8Ju09VpAipjspbayPhJuLBDoh3f2JUPsMAEdlV5ZF4eFfweYH11u5e2yrhS5h 3YHQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUjsoiDNc0LyOakcfrI4F6rZ8MWNjhdXyFfH8a88fC402tudFfrn i1V1IdoCI68S3VzoBrjwwFuT4tBxNYphmR+hEi/XoA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBYVzqmBwL1O3yJazoXkNO7KPhoGQJPYWxrdzxSFtE9KFwzykaeHHqtSYtZkFJOZjWhwY4ELlGj7OGNSG0nXa8=
X-Received: by 10.223.176.46 with SMTP id f43mr4159856wra.206.1506064171758; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 00:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.213.9 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 00:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20170922070719.74AA687A424E@rock.dv.isc.org>
References: <D5E8043B.86B21%lee@asgard.org> <E48DDA04-C058-4992-906E-8C8BC0E102AB@consulintel.es> <1BFA3605-4B16-4331-A7BA-3BDECBCA64EC@gmail.com> <85868796-18C7-48F4-BE69-8D50A1F47EF3@jisc.ac.uk> <472CC0F7-73C2-4A21-8F96-BBC966B01B77@employees.org> <de6b9aac-a3cc-0915-77c7-9fb880c3a16a@gmail.com> <20170921223305.B72A8878E716@rock.dv.isc.org> <CAKD1Yr13ijKCB_71_2vMyGurc3-kSraLJycGxZwf121tjp8u1Q@mail.gmail.com> <20170922070719.74AA687A424E@rock.dv.isc.org>
From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 16:09:10 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAedzxr3qErLdgfj=O_wH=Y76J++yDp_7-e+MEwdB82RaQ4EQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="001a11438d5afd69690559c1e330"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/7XWGXOANOrqk57pUbXbDc0ELfuA>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 07:09:35 -0000

On 22 September 2017 at 16:07, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>
> In message <CAKD1Yr13ijKCB_71_2vMyGurc3-kSraLJycGxZwf121tjp8u1Q@mail.gmail.com>, Lorenzo Colitti writes:
>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Because 464XLAT is almost always deployed with DNS64 (there are
>> > potentially other ways to learn the address mappings):
>> >
>> > YOU DO NOT KNOW IF THE IPV6 CONNECTION YOU ARE MAKING IS BEING
>> > TERMINATED ON A IPV6 NODE.
>> >
>>
>> Why don't you? All you need to do is compare the destination address with
>> the NAT64 prefix. If it's in that prefix, then it's an IPv4 node, otherwise
>> it's an IPv6 node.
>
> Thank you for proving my point.
>
> IPv6 applications need to add code to WORKAROUND breakages caused
> by NAT64 the way they need add WORKAROUNDS for the NAT breakages
> even if they are not using NAT64 or NAT respectively.  The cancer
> that is NAT64 needs to be eradicated.

Sounds more like the cancer that is IPv4 is what needs eradicating...

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email