Hi Dan,
Inline please,
2011/9/27 Dan Wing <dwing@xxxxxxxxx>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hui Deng [mailto:denghui02@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 11:01 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: teemu.savolainen@xxxxxxxxx; satoru.matsushima@xxxxxxxxx;
> ietf@xxxxxxxx; softwires@xxxxxxxx; behave@xxxxxxxx
> 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 DanIt can't determine the public IP address and port of a mapping on the
>
> 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?
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
Sorry.
> 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.
-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@xxxxxxxx [mailto:behave-
> bounces@xxxxxxxx] On
> > > Behalf Of ext Satoru Matsushima
> > > Sent: 13. syyskuuta 2011 06:51
> > > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: behave@xxxxxxxx; 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@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2011-09-14. Exceptionally,
> comments
> > may
> > > > be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxx
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Behave mailing list
> > > Behave@xxxxxxxx
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> Behave@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>
>
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf