"YangGL" <iamyanggl@gmail.com> Sat, 11 September 2010 21:31 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AEC73A68D7 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 14:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.237
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.237 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MISSING_SUBJECT=1.762, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QskDomcOe3n7 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 14:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D25BD3A6818 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 14:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1OuXZx-000MYn-8l for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 21:25:46 +0000
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 21:25:45 +0000
Message-Id: <E1OuXZx-000MYn-8l@psg.com>
From: YangGL <iamyanggl@gmail.com>
To: 'Xing Li' <xing@cernet.edu.cn>
Cc: 'Fred Baker' <fred@cisco.com>, 'Behave WG' <behave@ietf.org>, 'huang cancan' <cancanhuang110@gmail.com>, "'Yiu L. Lee'" <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>, 'IPv6 v6ops' <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, v4tov6transition@ietf.org
References:
<AANLkTim8kzSA8pKazc8u_w4C6j=y5bc-uArMWZaH9Nbm@mail.gmail.com> <C89A9B64.30FA2%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com> <002a01cb4712$d9f72fb0$8de58f10$@com> <B7569879-BD21-48EF-B411-BC99FAA48A22@cisco.com> <006c01cb4a81$ed53cd80$c7fb6880$@com> <7C56CE35-9D5A-4D29-823B-95CF8ADDA105@cisco.com> <002301cb4b0b$b3dab750$1b9025f0$@com> <4C8A384A.803@cernet.edu.cn> In-Reply-To: <4C8A384A.803@cernet.edu.cn> Subject: RE: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 23:39:40 +0800 Message-ID: <001401cb50fe$68c75400$3a55fc00$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: ActQ75XAkaVKSR05SKme2g21JJMRfQADZzig Content-Language: zh-cn Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org> Sure, dIVI does not require ALG, because it work like a tunnel = technology in the scenarios of IPv4-IPv6-IPv4. Hosts in the dIVI scenarios are also dual-stack, not IPv6-only. Best regards, Yang Guoliang -----Original Message----- From: Xing Li [mailto:xing@cernet.edu.cn]=20 Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 9:53 PM To: YangGL Cc: 'Fred Baker'; 'Behave WG'; 'huang cancan'; 'Yiu L. Lee'; 'IPv6 = v6ops'; v4tov6transition@ietf.org Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC YangGL =D0=B4=B5=C0: > Sorry, please let me emphasize my point again: I tested a deprecated NAT-PT > not because there isn't any stateless or stateful implementation (I = know > about IVI). Reasons are as below: > 1. On the basis of theoretical analysis, IPv4 address embedded in = payload is > a big problem to all kind of v6-v4 translation. At this point, I think there > is no big difference between NAT-PT and later technology. > =20 IVI requires ALG, but dIVI (double IVI) does not require ALG. xing > 2. There is a Juniper firewall in my lab, it can support NAT-PT. So I = can > carry on easily. > I don't want to argue again. Since many people question my test = result, I am > going to do it again, welcome everybody to work with us, and Fred, = please > give me the typical product list. > Please notice that the next test isn't an authentication entering = China > telecom's network, just for study. > > > Best regards, > Yang Guoliang > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com]=20 > Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 1:14 AM > To: YangGL > Cc: Yiu L. Lee; huang cancan; IPv6 v6ops; v4tov6transition@ietf.org; = Kurt > Erik Lindqvist; Behave WG > Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC > > So you tested one implementation, one that uses a technology that the = IETF > has deprecated (NAT-PT), and did not test the technology that has been > discussed in the behave working group under the name NAT64 (which is = also a > stateful model). On the basis of testing one vendor's implementation = of the > deprecated procedure, you assert that there is no implementation of = the > behave technology that uses the stateless mode, and the stateful mode = of the > behave technology that you didn't test either "doesn't work". > > Did I get that right? > > On Sep 2, 2010, at 2:33 AM, YangGL wrote: > > =20 >> Hi Fred, >> The device in my NAT64 tests was NAT-PT from Juniper, it is stateful. >> Based on my knowledge of IPv4/IPv6 translation, the major differences >> =20 > between stateful and stateless are bidirection and scalability. There = are > similar impact to applications. My test goal is finding out the impact = to > applications caused by IPv4/IPv6 translation, not whether a specific > translator work well. So I didn't test more products, also didn't run = two > modes. > =20 >> There are two major reasons for failure in my tests: >> 1. The protocols can't work with IPv4/IPv6 translator, such as IM and P2P. >> =20 > There are IPv4 addresses embedded in payload, NAT-PT can't translate. > =20 >> 2. The application programs are not designed for IPv6, such as some = kind >> =20 > of WEB browsers and Email clients. These programs can't work on the OS > without IPv4 address. > =20 >> So far I cannot find a stateless/stateful solution to solve the = problems >> =20 > as above. > =20 >> Best regards, >> Yang Guoliang >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com]=20 >> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 2:09 PM >> To: YangGL >> Cc: Yiu L. Lee; huang cancan; IPv6 v6ops; v4tov6transition@ietf.org; = Kurt >> =20 > Erik Lindqvist; Behave WG > =20 >> Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] = draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines >> =20 > WGLC > =20 >> </chair> <!-- v6ops --> >> <author> <!-- draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate --> >> >> May I ask a question? >> >> When you say you tested it with NAT64, what did you test with? >> >> There are two modes for translation between IPv4 and IPv6. The = stateful >> =20 > mode, described in draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful, is = essentially > identical in function to IPv4/IPv4 NAT, and allows IPv6 systems to = connect > to IPv4 systems but not the reverse. The stateless mode, described in > draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate, allows connections to be initiated in = either > direction. The downside of the stateless mode is that it requires a = direct > mapping between an IPv4 and an IPv6 address. The are two parts of a = common > framework, use the same addressing plan, and the same DNS extension. > =20 >> Are you running both modes, or only the stateful mode? If you are = only >> =20 > running the stateful mode, that what you're reporting is what we have = been > saying for some time it will behave like. > =20 >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-address-format >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-address-format >> "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", Congxiao Bao, Christian >> Huitema, Marcelo Bagnulo, Mohammed Boucadair, Xing Li, 15-Aug-10, >> <draft-ietf-behave-address-format-10.txt> >> >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-dns64 >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-dns64 >> "DNS64: DNS extensions for Network Address Translation from IPv6 = Clients >> to IPv4 Servers", Marcelo Bagnulo, Andrew Sullivan, Philip Matthews, >> Iljitsch van Beijnum, 5-Jul-10, <draft-ietf-behave-dns64-10.txt> >> >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework >> "Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation", Fred Baker, Xing Li, Congxiao >> Bao, Kevin Yin, 17-Aug-10, <draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-10.txt> >> >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate >> "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", Xing Li, Congxiao Bao, Fred Baker, >> 22-Aug-10, <draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-22.txt> >> >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful >> "Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 >> Clients to IPv4 Servers", Marcelo Bagnulo, Philip Matthews, Iljitsch = van >> Beijnum, 12-Jul-10, <draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-12.txt> >> >> >> On Aug 28, 2010, at 5:40 PM, YangGL wrote: >> >> =20 >>> Tests in my lab have proved that many popular applications cannot = work on >>> =20 > IPv6-only network with NAT64, such as IM, P2P, games, and part of = video. WEB > and part of mail (Outlook and Outlook express) are the only = applications we > can find working properly with NAT64. But there are more than 50% = traffic is > P2P, WEB traffic is less than 20% on CT=A1=AFs network. I think it is = not a good > news to NAT64. > =20 >>> Tests also prove that almost all of popular applications on Internet = can >>> =20 > work on IPv4-only network with single level and double level NAT44, = such as > WEB, mail, IM, P2P, games, video and etc. > =20 >>> NAT64 and NAT44 are similar in theory. But what make the difference = of >>> =20 > application support? I think it should be timing. NAT44 appears ten = years > ago. There are a few applications on internet at that time. Subsequent > applications, such as IM, P2P, were designed to work with NAT44. NAT64 come > after this popular applications, situation is totally different. If = NAT64 is > deployed on commercial network now, CT=A1=AFs network traffic will cut = down 70% > immediately, and most applications will release a new version for IPv6-only > or NAT64 in the next one year. But it is not a good idea to providers. > =20 >>> Best regards, >>> Yang Guoliang >>> >>> =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: v4tov6transition-bounces@ietf.org >>> =20 > [mailto:v4tov6transition-bounces@ietf.org] =B4=FA=B1=ED Yiu L. Lee > =20 >>> =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2010=C4=EA8=D4=C225=C8=D5 22:05 >>> =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: huang cancan >>> =B3=AD=CB=CD: Kurt Erik Lindqvist; IPv6 v6ops; = v4tov6transition@ietf.org >>> =D6=F7=CC=E2: Re: [v4tov6transition] = draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC >>> >>> From user=A1=AFs perspective, do they care IPv4 or IPv6? Most = don=A1=AFt. For >>> =20 > example: a casual web user wants to access his/her favorite IPv4-only > website. If his web client and PC support IPv6 and on an IPv6-only = network > with NAT64, the web traffic will go through the NAT once. If his web client > and PC support IPv4-only on an IPv4 network with NAT444, the web = traffic > will go through the NAT twice. In the end, he/she still gets the same > content. From this perspective, both experience =A1=B0could be=A1=B1 = very similar. > =20 >>> However, this use case is rather limited and not applicable to many >>> =20 > applications. This is why I said =A1=B0could be=A1=B1. Also, both = Cameron and I > agree that this is easier to implement IPv6-only on mobile network = than on > fixed network because mobile operators have more control over the = devices > and apps. IMHO, it will take longer time for fixed network operators = to > support NAT64 only solution in the network. > =20 >>> On 8/25/10 9:41 AM, "huang cancan" <cancanhuang110@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> well, I mean: why customer experience of IPv4-only + NAT444 could be = the >>> =20 > same as IPv6-only + NAT64? > =20 >>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Yiu L. Lee = <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com> >>> =20 > wrote: > =20 >>> In order to deploy IPv6-only + NAT64, the client and network must = talk >>> =20 > IPv6. It also requires DNS64. These requirements are not needed for > IPv4-only + NAT444. From the deployment point of view, they are very > different technologies.=20 > =20 >>> >>> On 8/25/10 7:13 AM, "huang cancan" <cancanhuang110@gmail.com >>> =20 > <http://cancanhuang110@gmail.com> > wrote: > =20 >>> hi,Yiu: >>> As you mentioned below: >>> =20 >>>> All I am saying is the customer >>>> experience of IPv4-only + NAT444 could be the same as IPv6-only + NAT64, >>>> =20 > but > =20 >>>> the technologies and plan to offer these service are very = different. >>>> =20 >>> Do you have any test data to support this conclusion? >>> >>> Can-can Huang >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Yiu L. Lee = <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com >>> =20 > <http://yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com> > wrote: > =20 >>>> Agreed. The 2x cost is really just the packet core ... which is of >>>> course a lot of money to double for no tangible benefit ..... talk >>>> about no business case .... And, still have numbering issues, = customer >>>> experience is the same as IPv4-only + NAT44 and approximately the = same >>>> as IPv6-only + NAT64 >>>> >>>> =20 >>> Life cycle of mobile equipments could be every 2-3 years, but life = cycle >>> =20 > of > =20 >>> consumer electronics could be 5+ years. Consider many large TVs with >>> Internet service selling today are still running IPv4-only, fixed = line >>> operators must prepare to support them in foreseeable future. >>> >>> That said, I am not saying an operator must build a dual-stack core >>> =20 > network, > =20 >>> there are technologies such as DS-lite and Softwire Mesh available = to run >>> =20 > a > =20 >>> pure IPv6 core network with dual-stack edge. All I am saying is the >>> =20 > customer > =20 >>> experience of IPv4-only + NAT444 could be the same as IPv6-only + = NAT64, >>> =20 > but > =20 >>> the technologies and plan to offer these service are very different. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> v4tov6transition mailing list >>> v4tov6transition@ietf.org <http://v4tov6transition@ietf.org>=20 >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> v4tov6transition mailing list >>> v4tov6transition@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition >>> =20 > > _______________________________________________ > Behave mailing list > Behave@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave > =20