IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Request for your two cents: Pros and Cons of IPv6 Transition Technologies for IPv4aaS (464XLAT, DS-Lite, lw4o6, MAP-E, MAP-T)

Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org> Wed, 19 September 2018 14:19 UTC

Return-Path: <lee@asgard.org>
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 7BEAD131038 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 07:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.234
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.234 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, 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 N51e_I2XjnOh for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 07:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atl4mhob20.registeredsite.com (atl4mhob20.registeredsite.com [209.17.115.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 164BB13101F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 07:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com (atl4qobmail01pod6.registeredsite.com [10.30.71.209]) by atl4mhob20.registeredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w8JEJGcK015276 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 10:19:16 -0400
Received: (qmail 15263 invoked by uid 0); 19 Sep 2018 14:19:16 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 174.64.33.182
X-Authenticated-UID: lee@asgard.org
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.2.103?) (lee@asgard.org@174.64.33.182) by 0 with ESMTPA; 19 Sep 2018 14:19:16 -0000
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <940CC666-9208-4784-B452-58D5482B7782@consulintel.es> <d8960bbf-ba84-e7e1-6d2b-63f973a7f33c@hit.bme.hu> <C40B15B6-4AB9-433F-94AD-A2624F359DC4@gmail.com> <6b691c03-a2ee-3656-e1bc-edbb17583216@hit.bme.hu> <1BFAD96D-F06E-4EBF-8751-761EF08E6EE0@consulintel.es> <67b5991a-e7ac-aef2-eeae-7531598428fe@asgard.org> <211c5c27-11a3-b264-3b5a-9d8f10f6ec45@hit.bme.hu> <CAHL_VyBcni90oJJTPVux5hcF+=ZUxvqs0-i=4XhvgE-KkSFU2g@mail.gmail.com> <1fd5d319-579d-ceed-c820-d43695e53a44@hit.bme.hu> <91A290C6-E187-439C-8916-E4720244A5A7@isc.org> <4ac93c8d-0919-6676-beed-8d31aacdc467@asgard.org> <CAERpkxBmQOH10W2c-SumYbS84UKQapo50bKVeunpJBOBm3ci1Q@mail.gmail.com> <bde0e8dd-2657-1837-fda4-7fb4be538279@gmail.com>
From: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>
Message-ID: <39afbb58-6c8e-5dec-bd09-ceb26e87cfb8@asgard.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 10:19:15 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <bde0e8dd-2657-1837-fda4-7fb4be538279@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ALSYLkmFuOl26jaXCT7pVmVIRFg>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Request for your two cents: Pros and Cons of IPv6 Transition Technologies for IPv4aaS (464XLAT, DS-Lite, lw4o6, MAP-E, MAP-T)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:19:23 -0000


On 09/19/2018 06:08 AM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>
>
> Le 18/09/2018 à 17:58, Edwin Cordeiro a écrit :
>> I did an analysis on some of the techniques a few years ago, not sure 
>> if it would still be useful:
>> http://edwin.scordeiro.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ComparisonBetweenIPv4toIPv6TransitionTechniques.pdf 
>>
>
> In that paper there is photo of skype session on transition technologies.
>
> Is skype now working on IPv6?

I started to test it (the web app, at least), but no AAAA for 
www.skype.com or web.skype.com
So, still no IPv6 support for Skype.

Lee

>
> Alex
>
>>
>> In the unlikely case you speak Portuguese all the details are 
>> available at:
>> http://edwin.scordeiro.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Edwin_Cordeiro_Mestrado_IPT.pdf 
>>
>>
>> Edwin Cordeiro
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 5:23 PM Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org 
>> <mailto:lee@asgard.org>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 09/17/2018 08:33 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>      > Requires using ISP’s recursive servers
>>      >
>>      > Yes, No, No, No, No
>>      >
>>      > We don’t yet have a NAT64 prefix discovery mechanism for 
>> 464XLAT that
>>      > doesn’t use the DNS.  This is not the same as requiring 
>> DNS64.  The
>>      > mapping can be in a locally served IPV4ONLY.ARPA zone (note 
>> this has
>>      > all the same DNSSEC issues as DNS64 because IANA’s 
>> IPV4ONLY.ARPA zone
>>      > is signed and securely delegated).
>>      >
>>     As I think about it, Google has public DNS64 servers that return a
>>     synthesized address using the WKP 64:ff9b::/96. So you might not be
>>     required to use the ISP's DNS (if the ISP uses the WKP).
>>     Or, as you say, other DNS shenanigans.
>>
>>     Lee
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     v6ops mailing list
>>     v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status