IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] 464xlat case study (was reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info)

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Thu, 28 September 2017 07:10 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=14445c1049=jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
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 342D7135338 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 00:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=consulintel.es; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=jordi.palet@consulintel.es header.d=consulintel.es
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 WZqvwsSIylHP for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 00:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.consulintel.es (mail.consulintel.es [217.126.185.215]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8CEF135333 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 00:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1506582645; x=1507187445; q=dns/txt; h=DomainKey-Signature: Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic: References:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Reply-To; bh=6Nr6XIOkb52Uhw7FiCgMqR5R+ QfiS8tSdApbKuggGsk=; b=NKhgC9luh9yAEGxyH3peMC2vjF2t2OnX4AWDtyCvs nuqFBPgm0X7QYQtwgqxaDmuFoVFnHajtulQ+GoucQwAmAL+4uPRbqCYQ3O99ffIz Jy+V8bcD3Vt1TfI/+m/lfvDYJ86yi8BYWN5kAzARM5OVaAK0DhxYWd/PhgmFQE8q 7w=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon; d=consulintel.es; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=AxgUfcYFITA2pr14g4oseILCviW0rWSvO96qSEEYIE6MQWD67zNTPNcoaflv 53E3RnmPVu+Tb0hrpKDNeg1dwZmDY++QqHGAgr0+vlA6+LKGnyYsGakF6 1EY8x2ajMgy/9d3wTlhgqgggZgPwXeEwq01+95MSrYAB1hYKsKDkgI=;
X-MDAV-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Thu, 28 Sep 2017 09:10:45 +0200
X-Spam-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Thu, 28 Sep 2017 09:10:44 +0200
Received: from [10.10.10.135] by mail.consulintel.es (MDaemon PRO v11.0.3) with ESMTP id md50005570421.msg for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 09:10:44 +0200
X-MDOP-RefID: re=0.000,fgs=0 (_st=1 _vt=0 _iwf=0)
X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-HashCash: 1:20:170928:md50005570421::BYolgcdSH1ZvZYkF:00003VHq
X-Return-Path: prvs=14445c1049=jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-Envelope-From: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: v6ops@ietf.org
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.26.0.170902
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 09:10:42 +0200
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
Message-ID: <3376C47E-6565-4FC6-9D4A-E734F33E25AB@consulintel.es>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] 464xlat case study (was reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info)
References: <LO1P123MB01168388285206BB7C26F029EA7A0@LO1P123MB0116.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <46045DAA-9096-43BA-A5FD-571232767726@google.com> <CAKD1Yr3vziaHfkR+hQ7QHXaz7QraKH2HLUVXUW63GpnOAj4JoQ@mail.gmail.com> <E72C3FBE-57A4-4058-B9E5-F7392C9E9101@google.com> <LO1P123MB0116805F9A18932E2D0694FEEA780@LO1P123MB0116.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <1496304E-54BE-47FA-A7F1-1AA6E163DAB1@employees.org> <CAD6AjGQdMFgv4727wHm41HmEyo2Z-PCabPHPSRSVwOi_rey7OQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr03zsuSBqPegs6RNbBqnJizUOLZwH+rNDi1Ocg4k+mARQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170928030630.DD2D08867238@rock.dv.isc.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709280753080.18564@uplift.swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709280753080.18564@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/emAq25azK7jJxlL3qW9ndIn6-Ac>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 464xlat case study (was 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, 28 Sep 2017 07:10:49 -0000

Even better … you can deploy 464XLAT with DNS64 aware DNS validators, so actually DNSSEC is not broken, so it is a matter of doing the things correctly.

Regards,
Jordi
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Organización: People's Front Against WWW
Responder a: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Fecha: jueves, 28 de septiembre de 2017, 7:57
Para: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
CC: "Heatley, N, Nick, TQB R" <nick.heatley@bt.com>, IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Asunto: Re: [v6ops] 464xlat case study (was reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info)

    On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Mark Andrews wrote:
    
    > Garbage.  At worst it would have been growing IPv6 traffic + dropping
    > NAT44 traffic.  THE OPERATORS ONLY HAD TO TURN ON DUAL STACK.
    
    NAT64 and the other ipv4-over-ipv6 technologies have the advantage of 
    allowing not having to deploy IPv4 at the edge with all that entails in 
    form of BCP38 functions, routing protocols, addressing, CGN boxes traffic 
    needs to be routed to, etc. Instead you can put your NAT64 machines 
    whereever they fit best and don't have to worry about how to get your 
    RFC1918 prefix traffic to it. Instead it's tunneled there. Less 
    complexity.
    
    So while I sympathize your "breaks DNSSEC" objection, 464XLAT actually 
    doesn't do that. DNS64 does. If all devices had 464XLAT then you wouldn't 
    have to do DNS64 (apart from the well-known "prefix detection" zones.
    
    -- 
    Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
    
    _______________________________________________
    v6ops mailing list
    v6ops@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email