[v6ops] 答复: Re: [BEHAVE] applications that break across NAT64

Dear all,

NAT64is a very important and practical method. However, it does have some 
limitation seemly unsurmountable, maybe there is alwo some other ways out? 

Bests, Linfeng
ZTE Corporation

Reinaldo Penno <rpenno@juniper.net> 
发件人:  behave-bounces@ietf.org
2010-09-24 02:58

收件人
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
抄送
'IPv6 Ops WG' <v6ops@ietf.org>, "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>
主题
Re: [BEHAVE] applications that break across NAT64

There is already some discussion in the document talking about NAT 
traversal
and ALGs. We point out the problem is generic to any NAT and not specific 
to
NAPT-PT as the original RFC seemed to imply.

As far as ALGs goes, due to the variety of possible NAT64 deployments
(enterprise, wireline, wireless, mixed, managed, etc) we have to support 
20
or so NAT64 ALGs. 

I'm not saying we should standardize ALGs, just giving feedback of what
looks like out there.

Thanks,

Reinaldo

On 9/23/10 11:50 AM, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> wrote:

>>> i need nat64, but i need one where the difficulties are not glossed
>>> over, please.
>> Perhaps something for BEHAVE's "Analysis of NAT-PT considerations with
>> IPv6/IPv4 translation" milestone, which is the response to v6ops's 
RFC4966.
>> Should that document describe the problem generally, or enumerate
>> applications which break and which work?
> 
> maybe up-level and a general checklist for NATx which could then be
> profiled for a particular nat mess
> 
> randy
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> Behave@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
Behave@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave