IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 26 March 2015 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 DB62E1A8866 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 mXQ8fHEGfFou for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22c.google.com (mail-ig0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 829A91A87C6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ignm3 with SMTP id m3so16982603ign.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=K4MEMBfoLFx5oWmY/n9oTHZNbS9sqmHz5S4J6hIqjdM=; b=c3gbqoqcIqJxjH1qC3HiQEbRyFAq2fqBVVRVN28R62SYiVTv19nHfqceHTm1cJDE0R u2HErWkwt77leZRhthfpXkVV9l9UbW5/M8I4WkhNWV8xU3Vwxj2VDAzdiIWUcQLk7Xje d292f8UMKi7fSTvxUZ9COuNd2HySKTJmzJl/Rznq7SfM+dKskNg7ClvdNixNQy0dcwVp 3l7/GbWn8vAsFIWOooeud/Wam6qY+QUWU7q9POe0FJSlDJNYOdwFi2v47iYfdVTvhyGR 0Ag/s853DWAXuoz58qH7B3HSWEH/Ev8CsYqBw8SAuH0bk3gG9q1pIhvpOYb8LfkKmEs4 BzGQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=K4MEMBfoLFx5oWmY/n9oTHZNbS9sqmHz5S4J6hIqjdM=; b=UIpKG8pjauMrjB6FXa2DRL7CNUQmnYt2SSSxjJNHXWg6eaW9vnIY11iqBNKWOPxG4N SerEl9+7i/98Z18N3Kpbf4fBfYTyRLMOICmr8GKLGFga5hB+CNJjDpMaBJKX/bBfaEFx jZ0k+G+kh/e3mpWb7VDT8RTsm6Z4hNsLErmEovrwd+Mj1AspqVYLxKfqqdZWFz5iL9+y ZDns8jKxoT7tqHNCvdb10yoT2bs6IMhV83OD/wY6bsNjeM65RSAhdhwGaCo+5qywLawH sLB1MsZkxxDLypY5yYPwPEnaom1aEPT+Of7chBLdDGtn0OyijNvBWBfW4kXGN07QBT1X twcg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmdyI/xfUbbcIDl01OG9sp7+/St4p5a5rWiYiX5oqg3SPiLjg41pgeNMpwRLmO8ccHxnvMq
X-Received: by 10.50.124.164 with SMTP id mj4mr37954798igb.38.1427389002835; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.195.75 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADhXe51TCqU2eMP4LS3DooZxQDAPD95OVJDXbiU7qvuvKCMq+w@mail.gmail.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>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:56:22 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr2=zc57+pOA9TFs+0azw0ZR1g67+08T=9eZPHjGXBvgFQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c2a68678905d051233e6c4"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/pk3J-a4ORi1xSWVeYVArz-w8eYs>
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 16:56:45 -0000

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:29 AM, James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

As someone who does maintain a 464xlat implementation for the purposes of
supporting IPv4, I don't think it's an unreasonable burden.

It's true that if we have compatibility solutions in place, we might never
completely get rid of IPv4 until all IPv4-only apps are obsolete. But if
the cost of maintaining such solutions is low, what's the harm?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email