Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>, Brian E Carpenter w
rites:
> On 21/09/2017 20:05, Ole Troan wrote:
> >>>>> From my perspective, there are multiple interoperable specs. We
> have several CLAT client implementations/vendors, from different vendors,
> and they work fine in the same and different operators and interoperate
> with different NAT64 and DNS64 vendors/implementations.
> >>>>
> >>>> What Im not sure is, because 464XLAT is basically RFC6145 (SIIT) +
> RFC6146 (Stateful NAT64) and also can use RFC6147 (DNS64), which are
> already Standards track, if we need also to move them to STD in that
> case, etc.
> >>>
> >>> I'll repeat myself earlier. Looking at the definitions of the terms,
> there is no reason it can't or shouldn't be BCP, which our charter does
> allow us to do, and which is a one-shot standard more appropriate to the
> case (IMHO). If you want it to be a standardard, a BCP is a standard.
> Let's advance it to BCP.
> >>
> >> I think theres an argument for this.
> >>
> >> But there will be people who will argue that encapsulation is the best
> practice.  Is there scope for a BCP by translation and a BCP by
> encapsulation?  Or would the BCP say NAT64/DNS64/464XLAT is the best way
> to serve nodes in an IPv6-only network?
> >>
> >> With IPv4 NAT, the IETF didnt define specific NAT mechanisms, so we
> ended up with many varieties, with different properties. Theres an
> argument also I think to nail down one single best translation approach.
> >
> > Yes, I do wonder in what alternate universe the IETF consensus is that
> best current practice is NAT44 -> NAT46 -> NAT64 + DNS64. ;-)
>
> We have a problem in that people confuse "a standard" with "the standard"
> and
> "a best current practice" with "the best current prcatice". But in the
> end that's
> just a matter of wording in the Abstract and Introduction. We say: if you
> want
> to run a pure IPv6 network service while supporting IPv4-only clients and
> servers,
> and do not wish to use any form of IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel, here is a good
> way to do it.

I'd argue it is a "way to do it".  Good is not a adjective I'd apply
to it as it has lots of side effects that impact others that are
NOT using it the same way as NAT impacts every developer that uses
IPv4.

Because 464XLAT is almost always deployed with DNS64 (there are
potentially other ways to learn the address mappings):

YOU DO NOT KNOW IF THE IPV6 CONNECTION YOU ARE MAKING IS BEING
TERMINATED ON A IPV6 NODE.  This restricts what you can do with
that connection.  This impacts on EVERY developer.

DNS64/NAT64 and 464XLAT needs to die and the earth needs to be
salted where they are buried.  They are not like NAT44 where there
no other viable alternative.  There are plenty of alternatives.

Mark

> That does sound like a BCP to me.
>
>     Brian
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]