IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-04.txt

"Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com> Tue, 05 November 2013 02:27 UTC

Return-Path: <evyncke@cisco.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 1E0DD21E818C for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:27:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ruk+zPwDBHqf for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:27:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA1ED11E8269 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:27:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2250; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383618452; x=1384828052; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=0l+vRDZnpRuKVTi2dsPrrF8KF8V3xK0kBLuYn3tgaOk=; b=IzPPa1lZsiJyejW1zn0GOnQIH8j9SOgTmNLYJeUrRa5NIHOZ3T8jLtVO c03/0aUBwnu/Yiz9lpYci6kgYfbx+h5Rsh3C/rPj9xVP1kPaQmVa5EBIq ZlbRIh7rxLCV0sUY35/r9+KGahos+SP9xrlPS0d7vIfWdcXruEg7ooTJ8 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApcGAEVXeFKtJXG//2dsb2JhbABZgwc4TQa/O4EoFm0HgiUBAQEEAQEBZAcXBAIBCBEEAQELHQcnCxQJCAIEEwgBh3gIBb4zjxo4BoMagQ4DiQiQMZBagyaCKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,637,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="280656532"
Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Nov 2013 02:27:32 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com [173.37.183.75]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA52RW6Y007972 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 02:27:32 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.229]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([173.37.183.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 20:27:31 -0600
From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>
To: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-04.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOyHBxK2tyuJV06kS+8KMLL/FcoZoWC5xA
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 02:27:30 +0000
Message-ID: <97EB7536A2B2C549846804BBF3FD47E1237E18A6@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
References: <20131013235941.31896.30276.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20131013235941.31896.30276.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.61.107.226]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-04.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 02:27:39 -0000

I have hard time to understand the case described in section 3.1.4 "co-existence of NAT44 and NAT64". Why would a provider use both at the same time? Using NAT44 + native IPv6 is sensible, using IPv6-only + NAT64 is also valuable but I cannot imagine why NAT44 and NAT64 could be use together for the same subscribers.

Thanks for shedding some light for me :-)

-éric

> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: dimanche 13 octobre 2013 16:00
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
> Subject: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-04.txt
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>  This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of the
> IETF.
> 
> 	Title           : NAT64 Operational Experiences
> 	Author(s)       : Gang Chen
>                           Zhen Cao
>                           Chongfeng Xie
>                           David Binet
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-04.txt
> 	Pages           : 20
> 	Date            : 2013-10-13
> 
> Abstract:
>    This document summarizes NAT64 function deployment scenarios and
>    operational experience.  Both NAT64 Carrier Grade NAT (NAT64-CGN) and
>    NAT64 server Front End (NAT64-FE) are considered in this document.
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience
> 
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-04
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-04
> 
> 
> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email