Hi Jordi, Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] De la part de JORDI PALET > MARTINEZ > Envoyé : lundi 31 juillet 2017 23:18 > À : ietf@xxxxxxxx > Objet : Re: RESENDING - Incremental Deployment of IPv6-only Wi-Fi for IETF > Meetings > > NAT64 was invented for a specific case (when apps use DNS and the right > APIs). [Med] This may be misinterpreted as there is a dependency of NAT64 on DNS. This is not technically true. This was clarified in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6889 This approach is pragmatic in the sense that there is no dependency on DNS implementation for the successful NAT handling. As long as there is a function (e.g., DNS64 [RFC6147] or other means) that can construct an IPv6-embedded IPv4 address with a pre-configured IPv6 prefix, an IPv4 address and a suffix (refer to [RFC6052]), NAT64 will work just fine. FWIW, there are even NAT64 deployments that do not even rely on DNS64. > > We realized then that app/devices vendors are lazy, or just they are out > of the market, so we invented 464XLAT, which uses the same concept as > NAT64/DNS64, but improves it by using the CLAT, a small daemon code in the > OS or the CPE to solve the problems of the literal addresses and non-APIs > apps/devices. > > We don’t need to tell the customers to disable IPv4 in their LANs, we need > to make sure that we deploy CPEs that support CLAT. [Med] Is there any CPE-based 464xlat deployment out there? This way, users don’t > need to throw away old devices or apps, neither learn anything about IPv4 > or IPv6, and everybody is happy. > > We are trying to solve a problem with NAT64 which we knew since it was > invented that it can’t be solved. We don’t have the time (unless some > magic is discovered) to now tell every ISP that is deploying IPv6 and > NAT64, to instead of NAT64 have something different. [Med] These operators (with CPEs) are already doing something *different*: DS-Lite and the like. NAT64 is widely deployed in cellular networks (host-based model), which is really straightforward. The solution is > there, if CPE vendors implement it, and we are talking about an available > open source code (several implementations) that take a few bytes. > > We are already doing this effort in v6ops, I started trying to tell the > RFC7084 about the need to update it, but didn’t succeeded. It seems that > now we may want to have instead of a CPE requirements including this, an > additional document to be a must for CPE vendors to support it, in case > the CPE expects “IPv4 old devices and apps” in the LANs (which is real > world life, and will be for 3-5 years). [Med] I'm afraid we don't need it. The IETF already specified tools to address that case (DS-Lite, MAP-E). > > Regards, > Jordi > > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> en nombre de Ole Jacobsen > <olejacobsen@xxxxxx> > Responder a: Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@xxxxxx> > Fecha: lunes, 31 de julio de 2017, 23:01 > Para: Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> > CC: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Asunto: Re: RESENDING - Incremental Deployment of IPv6-only Wi-Fi for IETF > Meetings > > > You said: > > > > Brian, why on earth would we want to advertise IPv6 to IETF > > attendees? We invented IPv6. If we really can't run a v6-only > > network at IETF, what that says is that we have failed utterly and > > expensively. I do not believe that this is correct: IPv6 works very > > well. > > Putting on my naive end-user hat: > > That might be true, but here is the thing: "The mission of the IETF is > to make the INTERNET work better..." (my emphasis) > > For at least a decade now, I've been told that I should "just use > IPv6" and some conferences have even "forced" me to do so. > > I always respond with this question: "Does running IPv6 allow me to > connect to the Internet?" (meaning the v4 Internet for the most part). > The answer always seems to be: "Yes, but you have to manually > configure this and, oh by the way, this won't work at all and that app > might not behave as expected." > > Demonstrating this to people who are experts seems like a waste > of time. > > So it sounds to me like we HAVE indeed failed utterly and expensively. > 99% of Internet users do not have any idea what version of IP they are > running just as they have no idea what a MAC address is or why/if they > should care. > > I'd love to see IPv6 succeed, but it is apparently impossible to do so > without teaching end-users a lot of stuff they really have no interest > in or ability to learn. What a shame. > > Ole > > > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.consulintel.es > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the > individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, including attached files, is prohibited. > >