IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-srv

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Fri, 17 May 2019 08:17 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 0CCA612034A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2019 01:17:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 rX3N4K540iXO for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2019 01:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (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 0B894120348 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 May 2019 01:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 8FF6AB5; Fri, 17 May 2019 10:17:27 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1558081047; bh=UDZ2ZdLS35C++ajZFKUdJKKDh2gqGBD6BNIRNI+TQJI=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Nd0RhTtprG7XgljUpCeVWpq5Zfk/I7Fdxr/k1FUxF+IfI4NlawDnl2oMcJJZ5uhC8 6VCW8vcfS3Iw7fzoPbNI/MNItCXW6MDaopPnX6yfQoILoLPOQNCMTvThxfq35ACTiD 6HP0qT8+gTZgHUO/rrGE+8hduHvbqga9NcDnNKl0=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DEB1B3; Fri, 17 May 2019 10:17:27 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 10:17:27 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Erik Kline <ek@loon.com>
cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAAedzxrdKSricUvJxEBLP7Jb2UmoNbSmEpDwx9bGAzOYQNhNcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1905171014220.1824@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <BYAPR05MB4245A78BEC3D7E3622A38395AE0F0@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1905131848190.1824@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAAedzxrdKSricUvJxEBLP7Jb2UmoNbSmEpDwx9bGAzOYQNhNcQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/fM2N5p18DSpjiDQ3uB03KXatSOM>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-srv
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 17 May 2019 08:17:33 -0000

On Tue, 14 May 2019, Erik Kline wrote:

> Really?  I don't see it yet.  I don't foresee any client implementing 
> this level of complexity -- it doesn't actually buy them anything.

I'd like the client to be aware of the fact that it is or isn't behind a 
DNS64 resolver and potentially understand that it has access to both 
types. If the device decides it has dual stack connectivity it can opt to 
not use the DNS64 resolver if it so chooses.

I ran into problems with this when I was involved in rolling out IPv6 in 
mobile, it was hard to decide whether to use DNS64 or not, for which 
clients etc.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email