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

[James Woodyatt <[e-mail]>]

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.


-- 
james woodyatt <[e-mail]>
Nest Labs, Communications Engineering