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

[marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

Alain Durand escribió:
> 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
>
>   
I don't know
I am working on the requirement draft, not on solution space.
So do you think we need to include this in the req draft or not?

> Second question, if you have that, why is it not enough and why would you
> still need to do any IPv6 to IPv4 translation?
>
>   
well, it seems that you will be having legacy IPv6 hosts (i.e. no new 
mechanisms) that are running IPv6 apps that want to communicate with v4 
hosts that are running ipv4 apps and in that case, this doesn't seem to work

regards, marcelo



>   - Alain.
>
>
>
>