IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] The need for local-ipv4 socket transition solutions -- NAT64/DNS64 remains insufficient

"Metzler, Dan J" <dan-metzler@uiowa.edu> Thu, 26 March 2015 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <dan-metzler@uiowa.edu>
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 0267C1A87E3 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:47:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] 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 R75HadaFh6ax for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0120.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECCA71A887A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CO2PR04MB585.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.141.196.139) by CO2PR04MB587.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.141.196.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.125.19; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:46:50 +0000
Received: from CO2PR04MB585.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.196.139]) by CO2PR04MB585.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.196.139]) with mapi id 15.01.0118.022; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:46:50 +0000
From: "Metzler, Dan J" <dan-metzler@uiowa.edu>
To: James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] The need for local-ipv4 socket transition solutions -- NAT64/DNS64 remains insufficient
Thread-Index: AQHQYouA3ye9AcRTck+xU68IbGwQo50k3BQAgAB1XgCAADeeAIADZz+AgAFS54CAAVsLAIAAFWiAgAAAioCAAA8DgIAAC2wAgABuQoCAAa/cAIAAFKSAgAD9fgCAAAMtoA==
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:46:49 +0000
Message-ID: <CO2PR04MB585C662E11E02460438EA45FE080@CO2PR04MB585.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAD6AjGT-hG-uvRQvRosrZtfrf0Nb8ne9jy=tD9oh=5zNM42Xsg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1503200639340.20507@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20150320134204.32af9c67@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <A0BB7AD89EA705449C486BDB5FDCBC7B28518DD8@OPE10MB06.tp.gk.corp.tepenet> <550F1F1F.3060703@cernet.edu.cn> <CAD6AjGSxk-Hrf_NBOjpV-jvraG+xSA4p1j-AO+FQFcVGzuf1Lg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3ywVy_00GYuw4Eq6cW_ZeL16bxpquaWWDMgSz44LagAg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGS-QMi+3oVGWDxnSMhEJH=VymwcF=PwKLdwFRxwHpp_-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3Fhnx3XaXouK57gupGOzodKGb0quhQxaf76NjWxSp3WA@mail.gmail.com> <CADhXe51MUB-czeCtpc63E0cHPpb_39Vv0o2Y57EVU2w_makP5Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTcKgK8W+VB1H5EQpHaYiKVYXqOz_2RS-w_CiTf9kL2CQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADhXe530+OVZrFZVaYh1-zoRDvJhUd0rf4sx6a2nO8SvKmm6zg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPi140PQ+TF0rED_bQPeS=Fj415qt0-zE2RdGnEL34PAzHyx6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTjXAeMF6pw5MO2Jrf9B8LJ48D3m1YTVkdBe=_OHjtroQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADhXe51TCqU2eMP4LS3DooZxQDAPD95OVJDXbiU7qvuvKCMq+w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADhXe51TCqU2eMP4LS3DooZxQDAPD95OVJDXbiU7qvuvKCMq+w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [129.255.224.53]
authentication-results: nestlabs.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO2PR04MB587;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CO2PR04MB587DF2B02F7E7ED2AD1119FFE080@CO2PR04MB587.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-antispam-report: BMV:1; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(164054003)(377454003)(24454002)(66066001)(40100003)(93886004)(122556002)(87936001)(62966003)(77156002)(19300405004)(2950100001)(77096005)(92566002)(90282001)(2900100001)(102836002)(54356999)(74316001)(76176999)(16236675004)(50986999)(106116001)(86362001)(76576001)(99286002)(19580405001)(15975445007)(19609705001)(2656002)(89122001)(88552001)(75432002)(46102003)(19580395003)(19625215002)(33656002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO2PR04MB587; H:CO2PR04MB585.namprd04.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005006)(5002010); SRVR:CO2PR04MB587; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CO2PR04MB587;
x-forefront-prvs: 0527DFA348
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CO2PR04MB585C662E11E02460438EA45FE080CO2PR04MB585namprd_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: uiowa.edu
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 26 Mar 2015 16:46:49.7483 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 1bc44595-9aba-4fc3-b8ec-7b94a5586fdc
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO2PR04MB587
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/hX_AL_EquKfTHzLUnnZ_v82Y1nc>
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] The need for local-ipv4 socket transition solutions -- NAT64/DNS64 remains insufficient
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, 26 Mar 2015 16:47:02 -0000

“Yes, I recognize that entirely shifting the burden of supporting IPv4 onto the operating system developers, into the unforeseeable future, while the network operators get a clean transition to IPv6-only, can seem like a "solution" from certain bell-shaped perspectives, but there is still a world outside that perspective where some of us are trying to make a living.”


-          What does that mean?

IPv4 literals will die off with IPv4, or sooner, whenever that happens.  In other words, “never”, is a long time; probably too long for that statement to be realistic.  What are you advocating?

Thanks,


-          Dan Metzler

From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Woodyatt
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 11:29 AM
To: Ca By
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG
Subject: Re: [v6ops] The need for local-ipv4 socket transition solutions -- NAT64/DNS64 remains insufficient

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com<mailto:cb.list6@gmail.com>> wrote:

[...] does not solve the non-zero number of websites in the Alexa 100 that have IPv4 literals in html / xml / js.
It also does not solve the sip / xmpp issue of being completely littered with IPv4 referrals. [...]

Neither does IPv6+CLAT, which simply admits defeat. The IPv4 literals will never die, and IPv4 as a service will never be sunset. Yes, I recognize that entirely shifting the burden of supporting IPv4 onto the operating system developers, into the unforeseeable future, while the network operators get a clean transition to IPv6-only, can seem like a "solution" from certain bell-shaped perspectives, but there is still a world outside that perspective where some of us are trying to make a living.


--
james woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com<mailto:jhw@nestlabs.com>>
Nest Labs, Communications Engineering

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email