IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] applications that break across NAT64

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Thu, 23 September 2010 15:28 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 622C03A69EC; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.097, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BrVljscW8xU6; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93BF63A6810; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag4FAGYOm0yrR7H+/2dsb2JhbACVXIxVcaomnDCFQQSETg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,223,1283731200"; d="scan'208";a="191030179"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Sep 2010 15:28:40 +0000
Received: from dwingWS ([10.32.240.196]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o8NFSeQE004408; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:28:40 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Randy Bush' <randy@psg.com>
References: <E1OybhE-000LHx-15@psg.com> <m2sk10iy7r.wl%randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2sk10iy7r.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:28:38 -0700
Message-ID: <00b801cb5b33$ff186680$fd493380$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: ActbBQlZLWh+ygGIQKSobKTPjIWEoAALXJmg
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: 'IPv6 Ops WG' <v6ops@ietf.org>, behave@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] applications that break across NAT64
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 23 Sep 2010 15:28:11 -0000

> >> Cameron, NAT64 also requires ALGs.
> > No, only for protocols that don't do their own NAT traversal.
> 
> this is engineering, not marketing.  the answer is
> 
>   yes, for protocols which do not do their own nat traversal
> 
> which is a non-trivial set
> 
> > FTP is a special case
> 
> and there are others, though many not as bad as ftp
> 
> 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?

-d

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email