IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com> Fri, 03 April 2015 18:07 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@nestlabs.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 EE5161ACE9B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 11:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 VGmPZNEPgtZS for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 11:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22f.google.com (mail-ob0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22f]) (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 0562F1ACE97 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 11:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbgh1 with SMTP id gh1so172496162obb.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 11:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nestlabs.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=/tmzHqmRKZQ0AdqMHhRYtjuPvxfuDGz9ygogkEr5L0k=; b=AiLB5h2eAIm3P97AkrWSQCvfdQWQNN/Olh9wLHJRoktUX6kMcow183rJFQykuJkFaw Mdra/ZPQsf5j3eZP0P0Sb4r8KVvY22E//vYpOi9LkIA9Whv9Kl9RQ/0ShjDEFxTcCQdZ ZMgmCbYWOidJdQOGzE+Wx8NKG+yUSyuOm4eXk=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=/tmzHqmRKZQ0AdqMHhRYtjuPvxfuDGz9ygogkEr5L0k=; b=Ei1Nc0Rq1o8qwWzOEnaPLcXqwR6yJIiAaOmv4r33dt1tHSKl3HtkB4ngXoCmXUMiSo giu5mJu2yvY/pAH9h/H51oU4BzUehq2LlD2PJxnKf8/kQi/xG6GU93RTMnt9D4CfYLHB 0dXM6UqE6Ychqb2BzmmLhzIb4LOk1H/nsUyeqZ2isLUZPaF1fFLrmXk4nl7b4OdmzwqF nlR9ZS58YwDAwd7P65mzuTEtgZHZuzo6ue1fjd546Ampsy3D/9e7iDNXZp9GlFIvNYx0 OveAOrtXRVAGX9X1ynju4QWv5V2rD98lBrddJWplnEzzcQXDGWHTRMK0cxWQVWoZETcW lJsw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkB7MsowAddaMCMd9ZFZTlMuvZeISycdcxQr4VKzxw7dBMV4QGr5Sh5bSF0RZ8VReoZPUox
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.128.33 with SMTP id nl1mr4212552obb.3.1428084477289; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 11:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.177.229 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 11:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGQrzoBJrqQfKO0N8Ji=oJ-ZP6Sn88sXf=opJ6bYVmTDZg@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> <CAD6AjGS-QMi+3oVGWDxnSMhEJH=VymwcF=PwKLdwFRxwHpp_-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3Fhnx3XaXouK57gupGOzodKGb0quhQxaf76NjWxSp3WA@mail.gmail.com> <CADhXe51MUB-czeCtpc63E0cHPpb_39Vv0o2Y57EVU2w_makP5Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTcKgK8W+VB1H5EQpHaYiKVYXqOz_2RS-w_CiTf9kL2CQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADhXe530+OVZrFZVaYh1-zoRDvJhUd0rf4sx6a2nO8SvKmm6zg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPi140PQ+TF0rED_bQPeS=Fj415qt0-zE2RdGnEL34PAzHyx6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTjXAeMF6pw5MO2Jrf9B8LJ48D3m1YTVkdBe=_OHjtroQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADhXe51TCqU2eMP4LS3DooZxQDAPD95OVJDXbiU7qvuvKCMq+w@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2=zc57+pOA9TFs+0azw0ZR1g67+08T=9eZPHjGXBvgFQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADhXe53T_30pj7xxwNs=mWEnd=do6oiq3KgN=U-gHLrLF-gG7Q@mail.gmail.com> <D1441574.4C168%wesley.george@twcable.com> <CAD6AjGQrzoBJrqQfKO0N8Ji=oJ-ZP6Sn88sXf=opJ6bYVmTDZg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:07:56 -0500
Message-ID: <CADhXe51MjVbsW512dSJqFpQUH44ZLazh=gkwD0mWwjw3=wqtUw@mail.gmail.com>
From: James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>
To: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff2544cfaa63b0512d5d31c"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/cR7Vt-PnDXvvFo3bw2V_LemsYw4>
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: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 18:07:59 -0000

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Conclusion:  IPv4 sockets need to be supported on hosts that operate in
> IPv6-only networks.
>

That's an overly general statement, which is why I'm pushing back. A more
specific statement you could make is that the IPv4 programming interfaces
need to be supported on general-purpose multi-program hosts that operate on
IPv6-only networks which bear a strong resemblance to yours. Phrase it that
way, however, and the case for a BCP from IETF seems less pressing.


-- 
james woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>
Nest Labs, Communications Engineering

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email