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

GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> Tue, 05 November 2013 03:15 UTC

Return-Path: <phdgang@gmail.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 1DB9611E821F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:15:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.210, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 fA7immZDqpLv for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:15:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-x230.google.com (mail-qc0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81F0111E81F7 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:15:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qc0-f176.google.com with SMTP id s19so4422180qcw.21 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 19:15:01 -0800 (PST)
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=L2PAbUv7WHOdouXLIzugSxZ95jcX0FqGtYrcfGnByJc=; b=c0eiO1qMJJC301+K9fKHHiaBKpTcJ5dJfDWvVXB6elWqvcTOOg0rASMQC5Mc+3ssvo +FadtiZgLkW+F8H2TH3fAiy7BN9JwVwY+pK7I/UrFAmHZNixcV4J7JZUL8e2YrYkIGF7 qPBvWEb+7tIzXLOAmlY7bODbsS2Qeek/eAH594LB2PRpbYwGZOwKjuDNtk6vTfH3igi9 iZ15xGOEHkzcTP5V8E4pJZL1h1/vpmf0l7FmrcBzrsprBJa5jkNbOHNuXz1GHhEJBzaS udgpcNXtBZHuODu3YfnBgGCtlPoWEkY4TpZm34evMAPtHzmW1egx4OXlJQoxP2h6WhCZ O5Rw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.54.129 with SMTP id q1mr26287543qag.19.1383621301066; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 19:15:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.224.204.4 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:15:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <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> <97EB7536A2B2C549846804BBF3FD47E1237E1941@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 11:15:01 +0800
Message-ID: <CAM+vMES=xhq7VF8SvqEZEz3ZCRN8p1zWiabkNnU6ucKVya6KQQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com>
To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 03:15:02 -0000

2013/11/5, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@cisco.com>om>:
> OK, understood, thanks :-) Your (and Victor's one) should be added to the
> document to make it clearer IMHO

Yes. In the draft, we have following description:

   The
   coexistence has already appeared in mobile networks, in which dual
   stack mobile phones normally initiate some dual-stack PDN/PDP
   Type[RFC6459] to query both IPv4/IPv6 address and IPv4 allocated
   addresses are very often private ones.

-Gang

>
> -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
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>