RE: [BEHAVE] next steps for ipv4-ipv6 co-existence and an interim meeting

["Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>]

> > With this in mind, I see the following short term next steps:
> > - Mark and I will produce a scenarios document that describes what
> > situations we must solve
> > - SOFTWIRE WG will be rechartered to add a work item on dual-stack
> > lite/snat (token: SOFTWIRE chairs)
> > - Progress the spec on dual-stack lite/snat (token: authors)
> > - For the rest, we need a written analysis of the overall 
> > design space
> > (token: Dan Wing and Alain Durand have agreed to do this)
> > - Progress the specs for the different translation-based proposals,
> > based on feedback in Dublin (token: authors)
> > - More discussion is needed on implications of 
> > "carrier-grade NATs" in the pure IPv4 space
> > 
> > Did I miss anything?
> 
> Just a detail, but IMHO worth validating.
> 
> Can it be assumed that the last but one item "Progress the specs for
> the different _translation-based_ proposals..." is in practice open to
> a proposal that avoids translation?
> 
> The reason for the question is the proposal that is worked 
> on, following the APBP presentation in Dublin, with interest 
> expressed in particular by Teemu Savolainen and Gabor Bajko of 
> Nokia.
> 
> With it, translation is completely avoided in scenario 1.d of Mark's 
> presentation (DS host accessing the IPv4-only world through 
> an IPv6-only cloud).
> This transparency of global IPv4 across tunnels is naturally 
> seen as a positive point of the design.

I would consider that 'host-based translation', and hence 
in scope of what Jari mentioned.  With host-based translation,
the host is doing the translation instead of a device in the 
network.  Depending on how it is implemented in the host, it 
could be the host application or the host's stack that 'borrows'
the IPv4 transport address.

I look forward to reading the I-D.

-d