Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Thu, 23 July 2015 07:55 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E671A89B4 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:55:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.661
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.661 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 6oe9yrn3tUJq for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:55:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 216A11A8951 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:55:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id AF04BA1; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:55:16 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1437638116; bh=ICmoVG6HefeU0E32tOboZhtxvHZ8WdW6iy1Vmc6210c=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=b62VmfIx9HhX+e6SCsRUtSyS/ABN7aSioo1tvvskYC2I8HLLAgijC6GhCY52JtoBe LmTSJ+xitslIorsEXfumW2QjHzz+LcPehPQ6hzfIds7WK69iDHS08KGNfz1z9AB0bb ZxUTXhTQkVnuX3ZeJNQAGIr1aFqqdfV5Ryzb53W4=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7A179F; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:55:16 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:55:16 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <55B09AE5.4040609@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1507230950330.11810@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1507230910190.11810@uplift.swm.pp.se> <55B09AE5.4040609@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Fcs2g5Pwc_r3CKcuOFpZosr1h_M>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 07:55:20 -0000

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Read RFC 6147 - it covers this issue, and points out that
> "The main drawback of this mode is its
> deployability, since it requires changes in the end hosts."

So you see no use for a document that gives guidance on this issue now 
that NAT64+DNS64 seems to be gaining traction, primarily in the mobile 
world?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se