IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn> Tue, 07 April 2015 05:23 UTC

Return-Path: <xing@cernet.edu.cn>
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 7853F1B2A10 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 22:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=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 p3f2RBJKNiak for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 22:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cernet.edu.cn (mail.cernet.edu.cn [202.112.39.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E156C1B2A0E for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 22:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [58.200.235.35]) by centos (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf3BrIANjaCNVEBVHAA--.8315S5; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 13:17:24 +0800 (CST)
Message-ID: <552369C8.5000801@cernet.edu.cn>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 13:23:20 +0800
From: Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net>
References: <CAD6AjGT-hG-uvRQvRosrZtfrf0Nb8ne9jy=tD9oh=5zNM42Xsg@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> <CAKD1Yr2=zc57+pOA9TFs+0azw0ZR1g67+08T=9eZPHjGXBvgFQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADhXe53T_30pj7xxwNs=mWEnd=do6oiq3KgN=U-gHLrLF-gG7Q@mail.gmail.com> <D1441574.4C168%wesley.george@twcable.com> <CAD6AjGQrzoBJrqQfKO0N8Ji=oJ-ZP6Sn88sXf=opJ6bYVmTDZg@mail.gmail.com> <552102B0.6070904@cernet.edu.cn> <35D97B17-8E83-43CF-ABEF-122572F1321A@eircom.net>
In-Reply-To: <35D97B17-8E83-43CF-ABEF-122572F1321A@eircom.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060601000309000001070504"
X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf3BrIANjaCNVEBVHAA--.8315S5
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoW7Kw43Zw4DGr1fKrWrKFWfZrb_yoW8CrWkpa y3Wa1UCanrGF10kas8Xw4fZwnY9FWkGr4kGw1jyrsxAws8GF4fKr429rZ0yryftryxXr4j grWUJ345Xa18ArJanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUqSb7Iv0xC_tr1lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r4j6ryUM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Gr0_Xr1l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr0_ Cr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67AKxVW8Jr0_Cr1UM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVW8Jr 0_Cr1UM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x20xvEncxIr21l5I8CrVAqjxCE14ACF2xKxwAv7VC2z280 aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lOx8S6xCaFVCjc4AY6r1j6r4UM4x0Y48IcVAKI48JMx8GjcxK6IxK0x IIj40E5I8CrwCY02Avz4vE14v_GrWl42xK82IYc2Ij64vIr41lx2IqxVAqx4xG67AKxVWU GVWUWwC20s026x8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF1VAY17CE14v26r1Y6r17MIIYrxkI7V AKI48JMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I0E14v26r1j 6r4UMIIF0xvE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWrJr0_WFyUJwCI42IY6I8E87Iv67AKxVW8JVWxJw CI42IY6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r4j6r4UJbIYCTnIWIevJa73UjIFyTuYvjxUF0eHDUUU U
X-CM-SenderInfo: p0lqwqxfhu0vvwohv3gofq/
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ps3VFi0GA26dB9R8lMIILIffhUs>
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: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 05:23:56 -0000

Ross Chandler 写道:
>> On 5 Apr 2015, at 10:38, Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn> wrote:
>>
>> Ca By 写道:
>>     
>>> Conclusion:  IPv4 sockets need to be supported on hosts that operate in IPv6-only networks.
>>>       
>> Fully agree, based CERNET2's 10 years IPv6-only backbone experience. We have the following observations.
>>
>> (1) If it is the IPv6-only network and IPv6-only applications (IPv6-only socket), then nobody will use it, except for the demonstration.
>> (2) If it is the IPv6-only network with single IPv4/IPv6 translation and IPv6-only applications (IPv6-only socket), then somebody will use it, but they are not the majority (less than 5%).
>> (3) If it is the IPv6-only network with double IPv4/IPv6 translation and IPv4/IPv6 applications (IPv4/IPv6 sockets), then everybody will use it happily.
>>
>> So I think the transition path should be moving from double translation to single translation and eventually to IPv6-only.
>> Regards,
>>
>> xing
>>     
>
> Once IPv6-only with double IPv4/IPv6 translation is available the next stage to reach is IPv6-only. IPv4 literals will be with us for as long as IPv4 is.
>   

If all the users on the Internet can access both the IPv4 (via double 
and single translation) and IPv6 (native) contents, who cares if the 
IPv4 literals will coexist with IPv4 and IPv6 for a long time?

> Similar to ISPs dropping services they don’t have a natural advantage in providing (Usenet, web hosting, email, in fact anything not tied to the access network) they eventually won’t bother to operate NAT64.
>   

If the ISP lacks the public IPv4 addresses, the justification is to compare

(1) (stateful or stateless NAT64 + [host based] double translation)
(2) (NAT44 + dual-stack)
(3) NAT44-only

Based on 10 years IPv6 operation experience of CERNET2, I think (1) 
costs less than (2) and (1) has more features (IPv6) than (3). Therefore 
(1) is the way to go.

Regards,

xing


> Ross
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email