Re: [v6ops] BIH vs 464XLAT
Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Mon, 02 April 2012 06:40 UTC
Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.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 B105A11E8097 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 23:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.14
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.14 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, 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 GVsgKwS2Uq5a for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 23:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02AC511E8073 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 23:40:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (20.128.152.78.rev.sfr.net [78.152.128.20]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q326enGc000355 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 2 Apr 2012 06:40:52 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <4F7949EA.8060701@bogus.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 08:40:42 +0200
From: Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
References: <4F719752.4060601@viagenie.ca> <CAD6AjGR-Y=8812WuySzhwiSf2-CP5yH=+bhgc1OM-h5qXyHTyA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGR-Y=8812WuySzhwiSf2-CP5yH=+bhgc1OM-h5qXyHTyA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Mon, 02 Apr 2012 06:40:54 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] BIH vs 464XLAT
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, 02 Apr 2012 06:40:56 -0000
On 3/27/12 12:59 , Cameron Byrne wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:32 AM, Simon Perreault > <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> wrote: >> I was thinking that bump-in-the-host (BIH) could be used for something like >> 464XLAT, and after some questioning I was pointed to the following extract from >> RFC6535: >> >> The IETF recommends using solutions based on dual stack or tunneling >> for IPv6 transition and specifically recommends against deployments >> utilizing double protocol translation. Use of BIH together with a >> NAT64 is NOT RECOMMENDED [RFC6180]. >> > > FYI -- i fought this restriction in BEHAVE. Lost. For whatever it's worth undesirable things are still sometime necessary. >> Wouldn't this anti-recommendation also apply to 464XLAT? >> >> Did the consensus on double translation change? >> > > I have to assume so since Softwires has mountain of work that is > double translation, and in fact MAP-T is triple translation, NAT4464 Without it you're kind stuck beyond a certain point. in the 464xlat case, it's seems like that point is where you've been handed a v4 literal and you have to do something with it other than fail. > It is perhaps the situation that BIH came a few months too soon for > the IESG to be responsive to the realistic need of double translation. > > That said, 464XLAT seldom uses double translation in practice when > used together with DNS64 > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-01#section-6.3 > > Double translation is only invoked in the case when NAT64/DNS64 alone > would result in failure of communication due to IPv4-only sockets or > IPv4 literals. > > So, the tradeoff is double translation or communication failure. > Subscribers who don't know what IP is like the double translation > solution that loads Skype. > > There is also the fact the IESG passed this > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-15 > ... which is clearly a tip of the hat to NAT444. It would be > unconscionable for the IESG to support NAT444 and not support > something that required IPv6 and enabled IPv6 like 464XLAT > > CB > >> Simon >> -- >> DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca >> NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca >> STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca >> _______________________________________________ >> v6ops mailing list >> v6ops@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >
- [v6ops] BIH vs 464XLAT Simon Perreault
- Re: [v6ops] BIH vs 464XLAT Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] BIH vs 464XLAT Joel jaeggli