IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] v6-only (with NAT64) as default network during a conference?

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 23 January 2014 01:57 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 D44321A0226 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:57:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
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 duc6Q0Le0as6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:57:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og103.obsmtp.com (exprod7og103.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4F4F1A0147 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:57:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob103.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUuB3GUbc30U5Q1awwOTmQxQNSZf4jtJw@postini.com; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:57:45 PST
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E511B82DE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:57:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F043190043; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:57:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:57:45 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKr6gn2yyhLwPc5O+QWs3LVK-tGWzsrdu=h7m7NDNgJ5Wk6RLg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 20:57:42 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <D599C0A0-A224-4B75-9286-3557447329E5@nominum.com>
References: <CAD77+gReP-weV3=_hz-rm0KvDbDjkmsZYc0H_rdQ=R9qpcNhJQ@mail.gmail.com> <24696EC9-3CC7-4518-A029-E385F1C987DD@nominum.com> <CAKr6gn35dWXxmDyuaRVzMfzm508-QBGGz3XnxjsokCXMYOm5ow@mail.gmail.com> <01E2D4B2-ECB1-4601-81A2-15C5D59F42EE@nominum.com> <CAKr6gn2yyhLwPc5O+QWs3LVK-tGWzsrdu=h7m7NDNgJ5Wk6RLg@mail.gmail.com>
To: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] v6-only (with NAT64) as default network during a conference?
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: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 01:57:46 -0000

On Jan 22, 2014, at 8:48 PM, George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> wrote:
> Aren't the VPN failure modes you mention in the NAT64 case also plausible examples which will break in a 464XLAT case?

It depends.   Often the bug in these cases is not in the bits on the wire, but in the way the application uses the kernel plumbing.   I think that's why 464xlat sometimes succeeds where NAT64 doesn't.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email