IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> Fri, 03 April 2015 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.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 D2ED71A1A80 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 14:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 vqrKeEx494Uy for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 14:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x235.google.com (mail-wi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::235]) (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 D6EBD1A1A65 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 14:15:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by widdi4 with SMTP id di4so117479973wid.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 14:15:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=BDqXczM64f0YpeSEAYEvT9F9x5GcDFIniiRXoWRtuzE=; b=Z4sdaoIBls9dD/EcRJfImT4D2YQxUs/3CSBqC5gf+7kI41o/vJGI94oh24oSJxLHR1 rSuYox1Eu3Z/bhTPP3tI80IFujIW8yWLHK5XAArdOy3yTDMK0UXGrxijQijYhyN8FilO lV0WhcWvL7mYH8suNlHzzUWa3MwXru9doXPVF6q+WkhpZ+WeEKwssdloxzKyn1zWoLsp MqdfFQjLP+Nf5eF5Zft0lmOUXBFRHUoz7Y2qPC5lHBD7zAMOQdxnWSM8zxz4GBuWWIg0 adjAxYN+yV5+QGpYrowmDGYJyeG6ddKamLVgtDcGKiWKuk3tR974tgS6HkWYMwH4ca16 QApg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.95.10 with SMTP id dg10mr660142wib.41.1428095713507; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 14:15:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.93.164 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 14:15:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <04B1F6B3-C406-4592-9BE9-04BF4099455C@lists.zabbadoz.net>
References: <CAD6AjGT-hG-uvRQvRosrZtfrf0Nb8ne9jy=tD9oh=5zNM42Xsg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1503200639340.20507@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20150320134204.32af9c67@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <A0BB7AD89EA705449C486BDB5FDCBC7B28518DD8@OPE10MB06.tp.gk.corp.tepenet> <550F1F1F.3060703@cernet.edu.cn> <CAD6AjGSxk-Hrf_NBOjpV-jvraG+xSA4p1j-AO+FQFcVGzuf1Lg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3ywVy_00GYuw4Eq6cW_ZeL16bxpquaWWDMgSz44LagAg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGS-QMi+3oVGWDxnSMhEJH=VymwcF=PwKLdwFRxwHpp_-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3Fhnx3XaXouK57gupGOzodKGb0quhQxaf76NjWxSp3WA@mail.gmail.com> <CADhXe51MUB-czeCtpc63E0cHPpb_39Vv0o2Y57EVU2w_makP5Q@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> <CADhXe53T_30pj7xxwNs=mWEnd=do6oiq3KgN=U-gHLrLF-gG7Q@mail.gmail.com> <D1441574.4C168%wesley.george@twcable.com> <CAD6AjGQrzoBJrqQfKO0N8Ji=oJ-ZP6Sn88sXf=opJ6bYVmTDZg@mail.gmail.com> <CADhXe51MjVbsW512dSJqFpQUH44ZLazh=gkwD0mWwjw3=wqtUw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr01qXwi=dN3Wdv1YPPDqCWG2nHyM=_Dhmh7BD+h6HsEwg@mail.gmail.com> <04B1F6B3-C406-4592-9BE9-04BF4099455C@lists.zabbadoz.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 14:15:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGRKdDv2ht83EAdW20AfQbsP=vEduPgyGRagVxmRwgfUtw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d04447f83b57ea40512d87195"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/OkK5yvIffBhPvlabcw8N6hrY4-8>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org 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: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 21:15:17 -0000

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb <
bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> wrote:

>
> > On 03 Apr 2015, at 20:57 , Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 4 Apr 2015 3:08 am, "James Woodyatt" <jhw@nestlabs.com> wrote:
> >
> > > That's an overly general statement, which is why I'm pushing back. A
> more specific statement you could make is that the IPv4 programming
> interfaces need to be supported on general-purpose multi-program hosts that
> operate on IPv6-only networks which bear a strong resemblance to yours.
> >
> > James,
> >
> > what do you purpose as a better alternative?
> >
> > Suppose that, as you say, not all popular OSes implement 464xlat. Aren't
> we just changing the outcome from "we'll never get away from IPv4-only
> socket calls" to "we'll never get away from running IPv4"? If so, how is
> that better?
> >
> > You could well argue that for as long as IPv4 is around, we'll never get
> rid of IPv4 socket calls either, because it's impossible for anyone to
> impose a "thou shalt not write an IPv4-only app" policy without placing
> themselves at a competitive disadvantage.
>
> Ok, so we need a monthly global “we’ll get rid of all these 512k IPv4
> prefixes in BGP for you”-day and the problem will be solved by christmas.
> It’s probably good enough if 5 major transport networks will do it once for
> a start, very much like 5 major content players started making loud noises
> 10 years to late for IPv6.  June 6 2016?  Who’s in for a long weekend?
>
> If you can say crazy things, so can I.
>
>

On my mobile network, this is really not that crazy of a statement at all.

I just need one more mobile OS vendor to implement 464XLAT and IPv6-only
will be every device of any consequence by default in the store.

CB

> —
> Bjoern A. Zeeb                                  Charles Haddon Spurgeon:
> "Friendship is one of the sweetest joys of life.  Many might have failed
>  beneath the bitterness of their trial  had they not found a friend."
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status