Re: Tunnel-to-NAT scenario

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

Alain,

That's encouraging.

I think we need a decision at the level of the
problem statement, however.

   Brian

On 2008-06-17 12:21, Alain Durand wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> It appears that the 'crude diagram below' is identical to the latest
> iteration of 464.
> 
>   - Alain.
> 
> 
> On 6/16/08 7:09 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> draft-bagnulo-behave-nat64-00.txt is being discussed
>> over on the BEHAVE list, and covers the case of an IPv6-only
>> initiator reaching an IPv4-only server.
>>
>> I believe that we also need to come up with a solution for an
>> IPv4 initiator reaching a server with IPv6-only connectivity.
>> My question is whether we can be satisfied with a solution
>> that requires that server to be dual stack, so that it can
>> tunnel IPv4 in IPv6 to a conventional IPv4-to-IPv4 NAT.
>> (Crude diagram below.)
>> That seems a lot simpler than developing complete MNAT-PT
>> or SHANTI solutions, which in can case can never really
>> offer more transparency that conventional NAT.
>>
>> If so, we could incorporate a tunnel-to-NAT scenario in
>> draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req.
>>
>>     Brian
>>
>> +------+-----+-------+          +------+-----+          +-----+------+
>> |Server|IPv4 |Encaps |__________|Decaps|NAT44|__________|IPv4 |Client|
>> |      |stack|in IPv6| IPv6 net |      |     | IPv4 net |stack|      |
>> +------+-----+-------+          +------+-----+          +-----+------+
>>
>>
> 
> 
>