Return-Path: 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 DC29C1A006D for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 05:54:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.388 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 wxM81tSifZyt for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 05:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x22c.google.com (mail-ig0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D508A1A0084 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 05:54:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igcau2 with SMTP id au2so51240715igc.1 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 05:54:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=1a5JaK5TMNDAUICjezH2nFkex9MILFuzOSXqfJot6m4=; b=aQuKixLnaNenp8ZsQaSoU76BjqKmusmVDnzUBmvnMkLNfmLsQaZetyvP4YsvN8JWxM Uwp1fnbV+U0D3Fhglp894kkEm8Mqal9L3ejBePFOHU3qTh7R1ukpsgZnWzuJWH9u9ZpN GzrJ2XEpGF/B2OcUO9eP4147aXxJKDjRz5jgzpMPMTnY1mpoPKkDV7SrlQ4gd6XgJfci 5ukjsz7Sr6+ph3SZg7UGTcYpgXCajdQ+poL035AxX5X//4F8l5qxbST+txRtvrEQvZ6V Xi3rvagAUNYoBWezK2kCHe9sFSFYLzlhccHO77rfa1WXWtrQjH9kDzLYQx2zEkOld1LF 2AOA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=1a5JaK5TMNDAUICjezH2nFkex9MILFuzOSXqfJot6m4=; b=CeA4Fe1ovoxh2az9o9YvHnFzXJI4ZVldRetmHT2Zy6633qkBkerJkq0AE+XVMW/DSx t/y1CZovLK8uYVPx6yZ7UfnoeE+6zGPj8MaCyh3DoCprAlcFT8U5NfeLT511CO5ICRrW PUInkj6eSHRD1jxmolZ5/mYEjqn5AXE3jc+Q7NXU5BNmAVnq2lfzotV9XXYPIhtXPrCb O9O5qzbwdgQT3Ui7vMkP5aAPFFlUvUnqFLXwUx57PnB3FG90cTD2CDrVl92A9YaFFF1P 4bxjSYHQ3r5POxTaW3eXqqIG+E/q/bUm86zA7LFOdPQrlZst2Ucn54wTwYq5Xio6iyER P4kA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmaornTqjmGdwYEnZPRhz1SDnSkJldAjoYkC9cXuNPRFLvka/Rk0kkvu4vo4mMU1/npfse2 X-Received: by 10.50.124.164 with SMTP id mj4mr21630157igb.38.1427201693034; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 05:54:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.195.75 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 05:54:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150320134204.32af9c67@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <550F1F1F.3060703@cernet.edu.cn> From: Lorenzo Colitti Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:54:32 -0500 Message-ID: To: Ca By Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2a686efe6cd0512084992 Archived-At: Cc: IPv6 Ops WG , Tore Anderson , Kossut Tomasz - Hurt 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:54:55 -0000 --001a11c2a686efe6cd0512084992 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Ca By wrote: > But there is one major mobile OS missing this feature. > > Perhaps the IETF should give guidance via BCP that an IPv6-only solution > that supports IPv4 sockets be supported on hosts > Oh, I see why you started this thread now. Do you expect that the IETF would be able to reach consensus on such a statement? --001a11c2a686efe6cd0512084992 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On M= on, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wr= ote:
But there is one major mobile OS mi= ssing this feature.

Perhaps the IETF should give g= uidance via BCP that an IPv6-only solution that supports IPv4 sockets be su= pported on hosts=C2=A0

<= div>Oh, I see why you started this thread now. Do you expect that the IETF = would be able to reach consensus on such a statement?
--001a11c2a686efe6cd0512084992--