Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-00.txt

Hi Chongfeng,

I’m not sure if you mean in the context of iOS or in general.

In iOS (and also other OSs started doing the same, according to what I understood from other vendors and testing that I’ve done myself), DNS64 synthesis is done by the OS or the apps.

If HEv2 (RFC8305) is implemented, this is described in section 7.1 & 7.2.

I’ve also described that in RFC8683, across many sections, also showing other possible solutions.

This resolves the problem of breaking DNSSEC which may happen in certain situations when the DNS64 is done by the operator.

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 19/4/21 10:43, "v6ops en nombre de Chongfeng Xie" <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org en nombre de xiechf@chinatelecom.cn> escribió:

I don't think CLAT is only used for tethering,  it also be responsible for synthetisingIPv4 address into IPv6 address when the DNS query is not processed by DNS64 of the carrier network, for instance, the DNS service is provided via HTTPDNS by some other organzations, which is very popular in the current Internet.

Regards

Chongfeng

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ

Date: 2021-04-16 20:20

To: v6ops@ietf.org

Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-00.txt

Hi Eduard,

I think I can provide some light on this.

iOS was not supporting CLAT since a few years ago, which was a problem for using 464XLAT in tethering, but this is no longer true. Thanks to the push from several operators Apple finally implemented CLAT, which is only needed for the tethering, because the "similar" solution to bump-in-the-host resolve the problem for the apps in the iOS device. Further to that, this is supported because Apple took a very good decision long time ago (2016 I believe), to only allow in the AppStore apps that work in IPv6-only, so that's why the CLAT is not need for the iOS device itself.

Having no need for the CLAT to be enabled means lower battery consumption, and of course, lower CPU cost and delay if the other end is also using IPv6, so not NAT at all.

We have indeed some mentions about PCP and EAM in the text, not sure what you will like to see in the document. Could you please elaborate a bit more? An specific section about that or?

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 16/4/21 14:03, "v6ops en nombre de Vasilenko Eduard" <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org en nombre de vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> escribió:

    Hi all,

    iOS does not support 464XLAT/CLAT.

    They do use RFC 6535 (Bump in the host) instead.

    It is probably an important fact for 4.4.2

    I am not sure that it is needed here. But there is the story of how to initiate a NAT connection in the opposite direction.

    PCP (RFC 7225, RFC 6887), STUN (RFC 5389), EAM (RFC 7757), public IP allocation on CGNAT.

    Different translation technologies have different compatibility and different tools for how to punch a hole in the opposite direction.

    Some FBBs have a real shortage of public IPv4 to play with this.

    It is a little strange that PCP (RFC 7225) has not been mentioned at all.

    Eduard

    -----Original Message-----

    From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org

    Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 11:16 PM

    To: i-d-announce@ietf.org

    Cc: v6ops@ietf.org

    Subject: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-00.txt

    A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

    This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations WG of the IETF.

            Title           : Pros and Cons of IPv6 Transition Technologies for IPv4aaS

            Authors         : Gabor Lencse

                              Jordi Palet Martinez

                              Lee Howard

                              Richard Patterson

                              Ian Farrer

    Filename        : draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-00.txt

    Pages           : 30

    Date            : 2021-04-15

    Abstract:

       Several IPv6 transition technologies have been developed to provide

       customers with IPv4-as-a-Service (IPv4aaS) for ISPs with an IPv6-only

       access and/or core network.  All these technologies have their

       advantages and disadvantages, and depending on existing topology,

       skills, strategy and other preferences, one of these technologies may

       be the most appropriate solution for a network operator.

       This document examines the five most prominent IPv4aaS technologies

       considering a number of different aspects to provide network

       operators with an easy to use reference to assist in selecting the

       technology that best suits their needs.

    The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison/

    There are also htmlized versions available at:

    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-00

    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-00

    Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

    Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:

    ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

    _______________________________________________

    v6ops mailing list

    v6ops@ietf.org

    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

    _______________________________________________

    v6ops mailing list

    v6ops@ietf.org

    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

**********************************************

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.

_______________________________________________

v6ops mailing list

v6ops@ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

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

**********************************************
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.