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

Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> Tue, 24 March 2015 14:11 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 CB92B1A8716 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.749 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, 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 2PymcFj0MhEs for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x233.google.com (mail-wi0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::233]) (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 9DE801A8739 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibgn9 with SMTP id gn9so97271923wib.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:11:09 -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=vhxPvzx7zhrB9F8EQ6mk3li4/SJ5vuPK267AGiyKXC0=; b=WY7hDFXdw23wjJtThZZ+jLJqBnMWARNwP1u+PG6j3SINiIh7wn2/YP0FfWNAQNXr5c 54V3ZyGd8weqGjUyxUG7M+nGxGiMBU9PU12/8QqmkBTIzQGRyjyok26svJ4BRCgIWOka hjs2k16ZiBmCUfe68KOd7ZvfQzDqyLaKUkWLXU/YGMl8YECr0gPZhfxxWos1RgidZA8k iPTBNzoBPMiw1vwVUUsAzwG7GXMFSLdjQcibdiOspWASR5xDkEtWAs5atii5f27ZIfJE ZV6Zg9AItU1UU3dncR4WBbz2O9hnQO8+dFPAL2ODW89r9iKeGJXsVygoQwAtvLEnnp5V HIsA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.77.230 with SMTP id v6mr8461060wjw.25.1427206269316; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.93.164 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3ywVy_00GYuw4Eq6cW_ZeL16bxpquaWWDMgSz44LagAg@mail.gmail.com>
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>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:11:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGS-QMi+3oVGWDxnSMhEJH=VymwcF=PwKLdwFRxwHpp_-Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bfd028cb433de0512095ad7"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/T6JU3pCKp5W9rGfHNke6TJYS8KY>
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>, Kossut Tomasz - Hurt <Tomasz.Kossut@orange.com>
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: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:11:12 -0000

On Tuesday, March 24, 2015, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cb.list6@gmail.com');>> 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?
>


Yes. Are you in opposition?