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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Fri, 20 March 2015 05:42 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 A3F491B2BF7 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 22:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.961
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 8npo1W53dGVc for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 22:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 791B51B2BFD for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 22:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id D313CA1; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 06:42:00 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1426830120; bh=3p21a4atUEUkRjnnZb3bH4kMvji2cJevGR70ddCTHoE=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=J9OVcJzI4wPYv6l1FqQAZQNECTzgqk1IJwu5HDmypar1a/WdoFvrsyzyBJlln3Ufe 0lvOoitfONXTndXclom2FLGez4U5VP4iu4w54cigjQKiTvfNzKes5a4sLDJEj+1F9D 7Sx2IVvNe/PrfXnLTn/Jpg8RkYDU7kA71ae5Pzdc=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA99F9F; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 06:42:00 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 06:42:00 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGT-hG-uvRQvRosrZtfrf0Nb8ne9jy=tD9oh=5zNM42Xsg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1503200639340.20507@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <CAD6AjGT-hG-uvRQvRosrZtfrf0Nb8ne9jy=tD9oh=5zNM42Xsg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/leZz1ecLygm45gKb4-SZsmtbDDQ>
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: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 05:42:05 -0000

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015, Ca By wrote:

> My conclusion is that it is not feasible for a network operator to deploy a
> purely IPv6-only socket solution.  As has been previously explored, about

I agree, it isn't now. And this is the same as with most APIs, it takes a 
long time to deprecate old APIs. I believe it'll take at least 10-20 years 
before "open" operating systems will start to deprecate the old IPv4 APIs. 
Until then, the operating system will have to implement functions like 
464XLAT to work around this situation. It's not good, but I'd say this is 
pretty typical transition problem.

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