IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Erik Kline <ek@google.com> Thu, 26 March 2015 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ek@google.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 3292F1ACD9A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.389
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.389 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, 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 g98xfsKZCTGV for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x231.google.com (mail-qg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::231]) (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 C26BA1B29B0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgep97 with SMTP id p97so110753734qge.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:23:32 -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=SieAg/EOQmW0Jfl+Wj/QxM8k7ovAZb/TsfM1C43mhjU=; b=acYgtWupdlnW/Ww8hSom22kqSLhRcFDsZ+ZwXSs8a+5govQ5iOTHw3tUX6do+74C6i svgOx2O6lBeHsMEHNS5pNIaruHEe+I9DVEFala6SYofr2uDCqFn0O/N3I5UUgp97+Dhp 2Yh3TZtAnCyarbl/HYYxs8JJfWGxM4JdYho0jE5BtCvE5OjgRX6ri91gKiKoHMkMB6bm kkkWpCl8VW6vpkDivhx3Xuq1QZc+9z4JBglwk9CtKN84ymZIhc4O/mmR4XZ2ZCsWi813 y7FeJ0UmiTvRwE8gWQldMVxciziA2+tEC3Sug9LME7Dd3fE0zr9Q02OseIcqNuyOgskO xWjQ==
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=SieAg/EOQmW0Jfl+Wj/QxM8k7ovAZb/TsfM1C43mhjU=; b=i3ameVpqOMDGhJJZuSboHqDFmhzH1ej4WziYbJ+h5ZS9iXEwP0QxZyHsiJ6S0PR8/6 mqFZiIvjixlNCQtcRxx9KPSvtoRQAz+rf678oYETmx9uZwdsQZv6ScwsI03jW5PZrz5q dBPJw3z8/bLOclHkJE07kzpjPtrQ+acysGsdkCT3AOJNov4ZQEwkja9Oijch3nJPQ6r4 42ENMRENcxNTCoXCJqoZbnDetmhocqc8IMrhSyxAuRRfVAVMWNHAEp5Y6D7wcyV7eBSa 03uIF5wriBcYlkzVU/ynTzh1jbpALsi8SrwfogPAFV2kWD6DHQCaFSN+v6/msCsPB3dC d7Ww==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkmqahe1Lo+Y/kbuLaCKD442U8dfYWqJVjE1w5Yc7ZPfexlGNYifR8Zs+iBLU9JqgnVqJx5
X-Received: by 10.140.42.13 with SMTP id b13mr19708598qga.43.1427394209243; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.114.72 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:23:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150326191106.42c1a9ac@envy.fud.no>
References: <CAD6AjGT-hG-uvRQvRosrZtfrf0Nb8ne9jy=tD9oh=5zNM42Xsg@mail.gmail.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> <CAKD1Yr2=zc57+pOA9TFs+0azw0ZR1g67+08T=9eZPHjGXBvgFQ@mail.gmail.com> <20150326191106.42c1a9ac@envy.fud.no>
From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 13:23:09 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAedzxqjYZozAZXMUE5sjHBTTDE_Gu3V0rD7uTjEvHNDwevbNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/QP_VhIKwOKVReONhZsFwVkUiyXU>
Cc: IPv6 Ops 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: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 18:23:34 -0000

>> > Yes, I recognize that entirely shifting the burden of supporting
>> > IPv4 onto the operating system developers, into the unforeseeable
>> > future, while the network operators get a clean transition to
>> > IPv6-only, can seem like a "solution" from certain bell-shaped
>> > perspectives, but there is still a world outside that perspective
>> > where some of us are trying to make a living.
>>
>> As someone who does maintain a 464xlat implementation for the
>> purposes of supporting IPv4, I don't think it's an unreasonable
>> burden.
>
> Agreed.

Yeah, I think we're in a "perfect is the enemy of the good" situation.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email