IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net> Mon, 06 April 2015 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ross@eircom.net>
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 41DC61A8753 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 07:24:17 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 sdKZLCANFEvd for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 07:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail00.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (mail00.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net [159.134.118.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E0051A6EDE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 07:24:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 58255 messnum 2393222 invoked from network[213.94.190.12/avas01.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net]); 6 Apr 2015 14:24:13 -0000
Received: from avas01.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (213.94.190.12) by mail00.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (qp 58255) with SMTP; 6 Apr 2015 14:24:13 -0000
Received: from [192.168.1.1] ([86.43.35.194]) by avas01.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net with Cloudmark Gateway id CeQ91q00d4BK5ly01eQCFh; Mon, 06 Apr 2015 15:24:13 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net>
In-Reply-To: <552102B0.6070904@cernet.edu.cn>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 15:24:03 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <35D97B17-8E83-43CF-ABEF-122572F1321A@eircom.net>
References: <CAD6AjGT-hG-uvRQvRosrZtfrf0Nb8ne9jy=tD9oh=5zNM42Xsg@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> <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>
To: Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/qIrgn94tpTRjZewXzSMnmjnEb1k>
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: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 14:24:17 -0000

> 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.
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.

Ross

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email