IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 21 September 2017 08:02 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@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 AA80A134457 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 01:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 GnYh3OilnGmX for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 01:02:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7B52133072 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 01:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id v8L82VUE005854; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 10:02:31 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 580F42034FE; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 10:02:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 411DE203513; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 10:02:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v8L82UWD023666; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 10:02:31 +0200
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <C1017FAF-91C3-4CA3-89C2-B64FF5100E41@consulintel.es> <a4385de4-ba3e-0b36-1bfd-ef3210fba08c@gmail.com> <6BD0B640-8853-4B32-9B30-936D8F58000F@consulintel.es> <8503DEC8-026D-4AA2-A887-87B29A2B2611@apple.com> <CAKD1Yr1Dh_qPVbKYXU9e9N2EqeKgS9yQYDR9aao9R-zGa3cU=g@mail.gmail.com> <376bfd13-8f22-3255-0f3b-d077cc205cc9@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1V5BsrrEO68ASS1hF-Qj3Q_SsyquXeRx0gNRdNURcKsw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55371780-be6c-49e6-fe40-bf3b4c05fcfd@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 10:02:30 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr1V5BsrrEO68ASS1hF-Qj3Q_SsyquXeRx0gNRdNURcKsw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/dI_QOLfh9XsW5yJcvzer1E5-8gw>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 08:02:37 -0000


Le 21/09/2017 à 08:52, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Alexandre Petrescu 
> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>         Instead of NAT4464, it would have been possible to use extra
>         IPv6 addresses to represent the tethered devices.
> 
> 
>     If you can make DHCPv6-PD software available on Android without needing
>     to root-risk the device, then I can look at making DHCPv6-PD deliver
>     these extra addresses.
> 
> 
> There's no need for any extra addresses. The traffic is already NATed 
> once and making IPv4 go from 4464 to 464 is not worth the additional 
> complexity, particularly because the tethered clients will have 
> end-to-end IPv6.

I am not sure how the tethered clients will have end-to-end IPv6 if they 
dont have a prefix dedicated to them.  Or maybe do you propose that to 
be 64share?

Alex

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email