IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-464XLAT not a "trial deployment report" - not to be an ietf-v6ops I.D.

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 20 February 2012 20:34 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 2415321F85B7 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:34:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.135
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.135 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.136, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 KcbRWKtwtEqp for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:34:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08EEB21F852A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:34:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iagf6 with SMTP id f6so9888917iag.31 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:34:46 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com designates 10.50.89.196 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.50.89.196;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com designates 10.50.89.196 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.50.89.196]) by 10.50.89.196 with SMTP id bq4mr15277533igb.26.1329770086790 (num_hops = 1); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:34:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8wEdoiegr10pBlnuLII/iQ8d73RBz49gQC1CaakkU5w=; b=E+jRQyx6/YURIehu0FqFyCYIvgQaBiAxwNc5yBJV14ccOXTIOs4ftbw2rxwt8dQGYA 0TDcG3K8jnEhsRnjfN5A83HownMyE3p7mPIein1bPzNkpi6Srz+nJOc9zJ7jLNZxAF2d XFDptLBk9d7tg/u1slAJQ25DL7iHWaHfQVnvo=
Received: by 10.50.89.196 with SMTP id bq4mr12366656igb.26.1329770084900; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:34:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [130.216.38.124] (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz. [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d15sm29512157ibf.7.2012.02.20.12.34.41 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:34:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4F42AE5F.702@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:34:39 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com>
References: <BB119B6D-FC99-4637-988D-D17FBB50597A@laposte.net> <4F41255B.3020103@bogus.com> <4F414C28.8040606@gmail.com> <FEB35F33-5CAD-4A86-A48D-393DED45C1C4@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <FEB35F33-5CAD-4A86-A48D-393DED45C1C4@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, Russell Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-464XLAT not a "trial deployment report" - not to be an ietf-v6ops I.D.
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: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:34:52 -0000

On 2012-02-20 20:11, Satoru Matsushima wrote:
...
> I can see a strong statement that double protocol translation is an architecture which is not recommended by the IETF.
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-09)
> 
> I'd like to hear from chairs that does v6ops consent to be opposed to that statement.

Well, that's for the WG as a whole to say, not the chairs.

I hate translation, and I've hated it since RFC 1671. Therefore,
I hate double translation more. However, we are going to get
double translation anyway - via CPE NAT and CGN, or via 464XLAT.
It is a consequence of running out of IPv4 before the universal
deployment of IPv6.

I don't see one being more evil than the other, so it makes sense
to document the mechanisms.

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email