Re: [RRG] Six/One Router Design Clarifications

[Lixia Zhang <lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU>]

On Jul 15, 2008, at 2:06 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Chrsitian
>
> On 2008-07-13 01:42, Christian Vogt wrote:
> ...
> > For communications between upgraded and legacy edge networks, address
> > rewriting happens unilaterally on the border of the upgraded edge
> > network.  To avoid address inconsistencies between IP header and
> > payload also in this case, Six/One Router relies on application
> > functionality for network address translator traversal.  Applications
> > that may be affected by such address inconsistencies depend on this
> > functionality already today, due to the existing deployment of  
> > network
> > address translators.  It is hence safe to assume that those
> > applications, which use addresses in packet payloads, also support
> > network address translator traversal.
>
> I don't find this OK in an IPv6 environment. We've worked very hard  
> for
> years to make sure that IPv6 deployment doesn't require NAT, and it
> is not a correct assumption that applications can support NAT kludges
> for IPv6 just because they must do so for IPv4 (including IPv6-IPv4
> packet level translation).
>
>    Brian

it seems to me that a few issues need to be further sorted out here.

1/ what is the definition of "NAT" here in the context of IPv6?
I suppose it is a different one from v4 NAT that uses non-unique  
addresses?

2/ I wonder which position is being argued here regarding applications  
that embed IP addresses inside.  Independent from six/one router or  
not, it seems to me that, whether one likes it or not, IPv6-IPv4  
packet level translation is likely to be needed for some long time to  
come.

Lixia

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg