Re: [v6ops] NAT64/DNS64 and DNSSEC

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 29 July 2015 14:01 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
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 070161A1B81 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 07:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.309
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.309 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, 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 ZmQmH3104aNm for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 07:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (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 458E61A0095 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 07:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-04.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3864ADA007A; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 14:01:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.0.20.178] (71.233.41.235) by CAS-04.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 07:01:36 -0700
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EEB1FD3C-BFAA-4F52-86EF-749D7ED69A4C"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <m1ZKMsw-0000CCC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:01:35 -0400
Message-ID: <DAF1C040-9792-4846-B139-56EC94EC2076@nominum.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1507230910190.11810@uplift.swm.pp.se> <4797B33E-9851-427E-8710-84122AFD0FFA@cisco.com> <m1ZKMsw-0000CCC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.41.235]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/LiQBYwvSx-XrTElsnXHdFaVgysg>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <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: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 14:01:44 -0000

On Jul 29, 2015, at 4:38 AM, Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com>; wrote:
> I don't like it either. But there seems to be a vocal group of operators who
> like it. Not a lot of opposition and now Apple seems to like it as well.

I don’t really know what all the hate is for NAT64.   It does a great job of letting me run a v6only network whilst still communicating with v4 services on the Internet.  Maybe it’s not everybody’s cup of tea, but it’s a pretty nice solution, and I agree that making it work with DNSSEC ought to be a priority.