[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

Alain Durand escribió:


On 7/17/08 12:00 PM, "marcelo bagnulo braun" <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> wrote:


No, you need a v4 stack, not a v4 address. That is the whole point of the
dual-stack lite model.

i guess i will need to read the draft then cause i fail to understand
how useful could a stack wihtout an IP address could be


When a dual-stack lite host (dual stack capable, v6-only provisioned) wants
to send a v4 packet, it can simply put any v4 dummy address as source
address before shipping the packet through the v6 tunnel to the CGN. Even
0.0.0.1 will work as it will be replaced later by the CGN. The mapping will
be disambiguified by the tunnel ID (v6 src address).

i see
clever, indeed

I have read the draft (at least parts of it)

You state that:

  o  Dual-stack lite does not require any hack to the DNS.  In other
     words, there is no need to synthesize fake AAAA records to
     represent IPv4 addresses.  This make DNSsec works more reliably.

  o  Because of the DNS ALG hack, NAT-PT places restriction on the
     topology, in most cases requiring that all exiting traffic go
     through a single point of contention.  Because there is no DNS ALG
     with dual-stack lite and because each dual-stack lite device can
     be directed independently to a different dual-stack lite NAT, the
     dual-stack lite architecture can scale better.
While this was true for nat-pt and to some degree for nat64, if we adopt Dave's suggestion of using the v4 mapped prefixes, this all go away i think cause there is no relationship whatdoever between the dns64 and the nat64
As long as you recieve a AAAA RR from somehwere, the nat64 can be placed in a completely different part of the topology and the actual data packets do not need to use the same path than the DNS query/repsonse did 

So, i think this is no longer true

Regards, marcelo



  - Alain.