Re: [v6ops] The need for local-ipv4 socket transition solutions -- NAT64/DNS64 remains insufficient

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Wed, 22 April 2015 23:30 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 B37321B2B56 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 TFRMpTfvztzn for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [199.6.1.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A72FA1B2B58 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:30:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 660AA1FCC7D; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:30:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6C2416003C; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:30:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60B32160071; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:30:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id klYAph6qQ28q; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:30:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c122-106-161-187.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [122.106.161.187]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AF8AF16003C; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:30:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D70122D660D1; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:30:10 +1000 (EST)
To: James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <CAD6AjGT-hG-uvRQvRosrZtfrf0Nb8ne9jy=tD9oh=5zNM42Xsg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTcKgK8W+VB1H5EQpHaYiKVYXqOz_2RS-w_CiTf9kL2CQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADhXe530+OVZrFZVaYh1-zoRDvJhUd0rf4sx6a2nO8SvKmm6zg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPi140PQ+TF0rED_bQPeS=Fj415qt0-zE2RdGnEL34PAzHyx6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTjXAeMF6pw5MO2Jrf9B8LJ48D3m1YTVkdBe=_OHjtroQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADhXe51TCqU2eMP4LS3DooZxQDAPD95OVJDXbiU7qvuvKCMq+w@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2=zc57+pOA9TFs+0azw0ZR1g67+08T=9eZPHjGXBvgFQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADhXe53T_30pj7xxwNs=mWEnd=do6oiq3KgN=U-gHLrLF-gG7Q@mail.gmail.com> <D1441574.4C168%wesley.george@twcable.com> <CAD6AjGQrzoBJrqQfKO0N8Ji=oJ-ZP6Sn88sXf=opJ6bYVmTDZg@mail.gmail.com> <552102B0.6070904@cernet.edu.cn> <35D97B17-8E83-43CF-ABEF-122572F1321A@eircom.net> <552369C8.5000801@cernet.edu.cn> <CADhXe51BDuPhc8wdKGmRiBfSnrz7PMtqYXaoDO+5cwLx_xW2tw@mail.gmail.com> <55290E26.8080500@cernet.edu.cn> <CADhXe50zz9EtNtifMh+tN9XT-jKCTJB=vsQ6uG515iddOo7f2Q@mail.gmail.com> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303 E8C63A@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <67A2A6E4-0603-4E84-8534-EA6C706C6D5D@lists.zabbadoz.net> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303E8CBAB@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <0C3D10F1-B8AF-4097-91C6-D92CDDD5978D@nominum.com> <CAD6AjGR65jtZN4NV62p1XnUgoQRC+h=ELmsLcQaFTdrToMtwRA@mail.gmail.com> <CADhXe53VJeUDLpq2fpdndXF1VyPzQLTO=3LEYqbpOFmEPNbCJw@mail.gmail.com> <54AE4471-B568-4A92-B12D-137AD5950B60@nominum.com> <CADhXe52acGYR-y7VNpfXt=OQK7uqm1vNyHL3mwGhX8cpaYyW3A@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:36:37 -0700." <CADhXe52acGYR-y7VNpfXt=OQK7uqm1vNyHL3mwGhX8cpaYyW3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:30:09 +1000
Message-Id: <20150422233010.D70122D660D1@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/H-rG1tfWY730uSJp_wOiepSP2i4>
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] The need for local-ipv4 socket transition solutions -- NAT64/DNS64 remains insufficient
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: <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: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:30:28 -0000

In message <CADhXe52acGYR-y7VNpfXt=OQK7uqm1vNyHL3mwGhX8cpaYyW3A@mail.gmail.com>, James Woodya
tt writes:
> 
> I'm not optimistic that consensus would emerge for that recommendation.
> 
> Again: I think if 464XLAT promoters want to direct their energies on this
> topic in the most useful direction possible, then the best course of action
> would be to prepare drafts for updating RFC 3493 and RFC 3542 accordingly.
> In particular, I think it's critical to have a clear understanding of
> precisely what features of the PF_INET interfaces are expected to be
> handled by the CLAT function. If the IP_PKTINFO socket option, for example,
> is expected to be unsupported, then it's important to know that. What does
> the CLAT do with IPv4 link-local scope addresses? What about the
> SO_REUSEADDR option? A good place to start would probably be to go through
> the entire POSIX.1 standard, and for all the IPv4 networking interfaces,
> describe what is and isn't supported by the CLAT function recommended by
> IETF.
> 
> If this stuff is going to be a standard feature of host operating system
> for the foreseeable future, then I for one would like it to be standardized
> as well as the current IPv6 programming interfaces are standardized. I
> don't think that's an unreasonable position to start.

Part of that is getting the Advanced Socket API recognised by POSIX.
As a developer it is a right pain in the backside that it isn't and
you have to do different magic incantations to make the Advanced
Socket API visible on different platforms.

Making "socket(AF_INET,...)" fail would also be a interesting idea.
You can talk to IPv4 nodes over socket(AF_INET6, ...) using mapped
addresses.

A boring but useful Google Code project would be to go through the
OSS that is still IPv4 only and add IPv6 support.   Adding fast
failover to the next address would also be useful at the same time.
Pick a something like FreeBSD ports and bring all current ports up
to scratch.

> -- 
> james woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>
> Nest Labs, Communications Engineering
> 
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org