Re: changes to draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00.txt

[Alain Durand <alain_durand@cable.comcast.com>]

On 7/17/08 10:48 AM, "marcelo bagnulo braun" <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I am trying to extract the actual proposed changes for the draft
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> - 1) Additional scenario needed?
> ------------------------------------------
> 
> It seems that there is the potential need for a new scenario.
> It is the case described by Dan and by Teemu about a dual stack host,
> located in a v6 network, and that needs to run a v4 only application. In
> order to do that, it needs to obtain a public IPv4 transport address and
> also discover a tunnel endpoint, so it can tunnel v4 packets in v6 till
> the tunnel endpoint and use the IPv4 transport address it has obtained
> to establish a communication with v4 land.
> 
> So essentially this is tunnel scenario, but rather than being obtaining
> a full IPv4 address to use, the host only obtains a transport address
> (which is public)
> 
> I understand that this is what Dan and Teemu are proposing, is that correct?


How is this different from the dual-stack lite mechanism? See
draft-durand-dual-stack-lite-00.txt, section 3.2

Second question, if you have that, why is it not enough and why would you
still need to do any IPv6 to IPv4 translation?

  - Alain.