IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-04.txt

"Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com> Tue, 05 November 2013 02:47 UTC

Return-Path: <evyncke@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C82B21E83A8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:47:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YxRUo3JgbbOu for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:46:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2408021E83A9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:46:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1007; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383619609; x=1384829209; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Pou6MGKIdI6HaKyeG6KUD0GDKk7Zqz0icoEenZFJCdg=; b=H02gZErv2Tq6H6SyN8h7mNtmvzvbWX8ofeZnMoRC85bTpiT4DTgK8MLX HQ5PU/lJ8f+8xv3Fj4lkOoLHNNCZLTtceUUnRuvYvDI0bMZSq/ScCaalz Zj9Ue9jId4wJ8qntO6uW8qGyXjeckC79xU/IQGDg02at9EKOqq8lRtLLh Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiUFALZbeFKtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABZgweBC787gSgWdIIlAQEBBHkMBAIBCA4DBAEBAQodBzIUCQgCBA4FCId5vkGOAoEYMQcGgxqBDgOJCKELgyaBcTk
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,637,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="280673191"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Nov 2013 02:46:48 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA52klMn007659 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 5 Nov 2013 02:46:48 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.229]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([173.37.183.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 20:46:47 -0600
From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-04.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOyHBxK2tyuJV06kS+8KMLL/FcoZoWC5xAgABmFQD//5/CkA==
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 02:46:47 +0000
Message-ID: <97EB7536A2B2C549846804BBF3FD47E1237E1941@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
References: <20131013235941.31896.30276.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <97EB7536A2B2C549846804BBF3FD47E1237E18A6@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311050329470.26054@uplift.swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311050329470.26054@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.61.107.226]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-04.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 02:47:02 -0000

OK, understood, thanks :-) Your (and Victor's one) should be added to the document to make it clearer IMHO

-éric

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se]
> Sent: lundi 4 novembre 2013 18:31
> To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
> Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-04.txt
> 
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2013, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
> 
> > I have hard time to understand the case described in section 3.1.4
> > "co-existence of NAT44 and NAT64". Why would a provider use both at
> > the same time? Using NAT44 + native IPv6 is sensible, using IPv6-only
> > +
> > NAT64 is also valuable but I cannot imagine why NAT44 and NAT64 could
> > be use together for the same subscribers.
> 
> Mobile.
> 
> It's up to the terminal to initiate a connection in the APN, and you don't
> know if it'll be IPv4 only, IPv6 only or dual stack.
> 
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email