On 2007-11-09 07:22, Rémi Després wrote:
Brian Dickson wrote :If IPv6 hosts could be kept simple (i.e. unmodified for IPv6 to IPv4 connectivity), that would be a better perspective for IPv6 deployment.Brian E Carpenter wrote:The IAB request specifically asks for a solution for IPv6-only hosts...... On the IPv6-only host, add an IPv4 "thing". (interface/driver/whatever).
I don't see that. IPv6 stacks are still in flux and being actively
worked on. In any case, my analysis of RFC 4966 is that without
adding state in the IPv6 host, most of the problems identified
with NAT-PT cannot be mitigated. draft-carpenter-shanti-01
covers this in some detail.
Brian
One approach for this would be that the DNS would automatically return IPv4 mapped addresses to IPv6 queries when they have no IPv6 address but have at least one IPv4 address. Then boxes on the client-to-server paths which car support NAT for IPv4 connections (typically customer edge routers) can do the protocol conversion.The conversion would be a particular (simplified) NAT-PT (no fragmentation, and the same ALGs as deemed useful in IPv4 NATs ).As a matter of fact I proposed something in that direction in 2004, but just before discussion on the subject stopped, NAT-PT being allover deprecated. (ref. file:///Users/Pro/Documents/_%20%20%20%20%20PRO%20-%20ORG/IETF/RD%20against%20NAT-PT%20deprecation.html )Rémi