Re: [BEHAVE] [Softwires] Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06.txt> (Dual Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) <rajiva@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Cameron,
>
> Very interesting (& clever indeed).
>
>
> How does this clever code ensure that all but a few (pesky apps)
> continue to use IPv6 interface instead of the NAT46 interface?

Rajiv,

DNS64 is used.  So anything that can take  a AAAA will use a AAAA and
the native IPv6 path, with or without NAT64 -- as needed.

If the application itself delivers an IPv4 literal via protocols like
MSN or Skype, there is a path and socket made available, that is what
this NAT46 code does.

As i mentioned before, i don't like this.  But, i respect that it
works and it solves a real problem for users of these ipv4-only apps.
I personally find it easy to live with only IP version agnostic apps
that work well in an IPv6-only NAT64/DNS64 network.  I have been
eating this "dog food" for over 18 months.  I am happy to let the
market and eco-system punish apps for not supporting IPv6, and for the
market to reward apps that do support IPv6.

I believe draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06 has too narrow of a scope to
be useful since it explicitly does NOT support IPv4-only apps talking
to IPv4  servers over an IPv6-only network

Cameron

> Cheers,
> Rajiv
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: behave-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:behave-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of
>> Cameron Byrne
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:12 PM
>> To: Mark Townsley
>> Cc: Hui Deng; Softwires-wg list; Behave WG; IETF Discussion; Dan Wing
> (dwing)
>> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [Softwires] Last Call:
> <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-
>> 06.txt> (Dual Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)) to Proposed
> Standard
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Mark Townsley <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>> +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
>> >
>> > Frankly, I preferred it when you were running IPv6-only without BIH
> on your
>> trial, providing pressure to get rid of all those stranded literals
> and
>> pushing apps to open ipv6 sockets :-/
>> >
>> > - Mark
>>
>> We're still doing that, and IPv6-only is still my philosophical
>> preference and that is how we are launching the IPv6 + NAT64/DNS64
>> service into the production mobile network (real soon now).  No change
>> in that path.
>>
>> But some "power users" wanted their IPv4-only applications like Skype
>> to work so they coded a NAT46 work-around for the N900.  It is clever,
>> it works.
>>
>> Their process of feeling the pain of a very few pesky IPv4-only apps
>> and working around it is all documented here:
>> http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=60320
>>
>> Running NAT46 code here: http://code.google.com/p/n900ipv6/wiki/Nat64D
>>
>> In the end (as well as IPv6-only near term in mobile), IP version
>> agnostic apps will prove to be more reliable and therefore will get
>> more market share.
>>
>> Cameron
>> _______________________________________________
>> Behave mailing list
>> Behave@xxxxxxxx
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]