-----Original Message-----
From: Cameron Byrne [mailto:cb(_dot_)list6(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:16 AM
To: Hui Deng
Cc: softwires(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; behave(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
teemu(_dot_)savolainen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Dan Wing
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06.txt>
(Dual Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)) to Proposed Standard
On Sep 28, 2011 2:51 AM, "Hui Deng" <denghui02(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi Dan,
Inline please,
2011/9/27 Dan Wing <dwing(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
-----Original Message-----
From: Hui Deng [mailto:denghui02(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 11:01 PM
To: Dan Wing
Cc: teemu(_dot_)savolainen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com;
satoru(_dot_)matsushima(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; softwires(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
behave(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-
06.txt>
(Dual Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)) to Proposed
Standard
Hi Dan
inline please,
I believe the objection is against "non-deterministic
translation",
rather than stateful versus stateless. By non-
deterministic, I
mean
that the subscriber's equipment (e.g., CPE) cannot determine
the
mapping it will have on the Internet. A+P mechanisms are
Could you help be more elaboration on CPE can't determine the
ampping?
It can't determine the public IP address and port of a mapping on
the
NAT64 (CGN), and it can't create a mapping on the NAT64 (CGN) --
because
the CGN is going to make a dynamic mapping when it sees a UDP, TCP,
or ICMP packet from the subscriber.
I don't see it matters
+1 ... since the alternative is that apps that require ipv4 sockets and
pass ipv4 literals are stranded on ipv6 only networks.
Running code on the n900 shows that nat464 provides real user and
network benefit
Can you run an FTP server on the BIH host, and have it do active mode
transfers and passive mode transfers? I admit that isn't terribly
important (nobody much loves FTP any more), but if the BIH host
doesn't know its public mapping and can't create one, we lose that
class of applications that listen on a port. Losing that class
of applications may, or may not, be important. Many of those
applications do STUN or STUN-/ICE-like things for their own NAT
traversal (e.g., Skype). But some don't and work properly
without a hole punched (e.g., BitTorrent).
PCP can make all of this work, if it's integrated into BIH and
the NAT64.
-d
Cb
deterministic (including 4rd, Dual-IVI, and draft-ymbk-
aplus-p).
By the way, I would say you are missing one early draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-murakami-softwire-4v6-
translation-00
which is align with 4rd about 4v6 translation which has been
contributed by major operators which is also align with NAT64
deployment.
Sorry.
-d
-Hui
A stateful CGN, as commonly deployed, is not deterministic.
However -- and this is my point in this email -- a stateful
CGN
can be configured and deployed so that it deterministically
maps
traffic. That is, it can function very much like
A+P/4rd/Dual-
IVI
so that port "N" from subscriber "A" is always mapped to
public
port "Z" on IPv4 address "Y". We could have the CPE know
about
that fixed mapping using the same DHCP options that A+P/4rd/
Dual-IVI would use, or use PCP, or use some other protocol.
-d
> I would assume softwires follows these same IETF
guidelines and
> therefore is
> now focusing solely on stateless approaches(?). If the
IETF
opinion has
> changed so that also stateful double translation solutions
are
now ok
> for
> IETF, then that should perhaps be reflected in this
document as
well.
>
> Unfortunately, I did not have chance to go to softwires
interim, but
> please
> let us know if the discussions there impact also the
quoted
> recommendation.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Teemu
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: behave-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:behave-
bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
> > Behalf Of ext Satoru Matsushima
> > Sent: 13. syyskuuta 2011 06:51
> > To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > Cc: behave(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Satoru Matsushima
> > Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-
v4v6-bih-
06.txt>
> (Dual
> > Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)) to Proposed
Standard
> >
> > The introduction in the draft says:
> >
> >
> > > IETF recommends using dual-stack or tunneling based
solutions for
> > > IPv6 transition and specifically recommends against
deployments
> > > utilizing double protocol translation. Use of BIH
together with
> a
> > > NAT64 is NOT RECOMMENDED [RFC6180].
> > >
> >
> >
> > This statement makes a strong obstacle when we develop
stateless
> solution
> > with translation in softwires wg.
> > I think that it is still remained a room to make
decision
whether
> removing
> the
> > statement or remaining it.
> > The discussion which we'll have in the softwires interim
meeting
> would be
> > helpful to decide it.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > --satoru
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2011/08/31, at 22:53, The IESG wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The IESG has received a request from the Behavior
Engineering for
> > > Hindrance Avoidance WG (behave) to consider the
following
document:
> > > - 'Dual Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)'
> > > <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06.txt> as a Proposed
Standard
> > >
> > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few
weeks,
and
> solicits
> > > final comments on this action. Please send substantive
comments to
> the
> > > ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2011-09-14.
Exceptionally,
comments
> may
> > > be sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case,
please
retain the
> > > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated
sorting.
> > >
> > > Abstract
> > >
> > >
> > > Bump-In-the-Host (BIH) is a host-based IPv4 to IPv6
protocol
> > > translation mechanism that allows a class of IPv4-
only
> applications
> > > that work through NATs to communicate with IPv6-only
peers. The
> host
> > > on which applications are running may be connected
to
IPv6-only
> or
> > > dual-stack access networks. BIH hides IPv6 and
makes the
IPv4-
> only
> > > applications think they are talking with IPv4 peers
by
local
> > > synthesis of IPv4 addresses. This draft obsoletes
RFC
2767 and
> RFC
> > > 3338.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The file can be obtained via
> > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-
v4v6-bih/
> > >
> > > IESG discussion can be tracked via
> > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-
v4v6-bih/
> > >
> > >
> > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on
this I-
D.
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Behave mailing list
> > > Behave(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Behave mailing list
> > Behave(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
Behave(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf