Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Plan for IPv4/IPv6 $translation documents

From: "Durand, Alain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:38:01 -0400

Q#***qq

----- Original Message -----
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Cc: Behave WG <[email-masked]>; Hiroshi MIYATA <[email-masked]>; Fred Baker <[email-masked]>; Behave Chairs <[email-masked]>
Sent: Fri Mar 27 10:06:53 2009
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Plan for IPv4/IPv6 translation documents

marcelo bagnulo braun 写道:
> Xing Li escribió:
>> Hiroshi MIYATA 写道:
>>> Fred,
>>>
>>> I agree making separate prefix recommendation document, since we 
>>> would have well known
>>> prefix for translator.
>>> WKP would work with some restriction, like IPv6 network to IPv4 
>>> internet.
>>
>> For the stateless translator, the LIR is the only choice since we 
>> should not insert the global IPv4 routing table into global IPv6 
>> routing system.
>>
> imho this problem is not related to stateless or statefull, but 
> related to whether the scenario involves an IPv6 network or the IPv6 
> Internet (i.e. by definition, you cannot inject the IPv4 routing table 
> into the IPv6 internet if the scenarion does not involves the IPv6 
> internet)
>

It is strongle related to the stateless/stateful mode. Please see text 
in the framework document.

2.2.1. LIR prefix versus Well-Known prefix
2.2.1.1. Stateless mode
2.2.1.1.1. IPv6 Routing system scalability

   In the stateless mode, the more specifics inside the IPv4-embedded
   IPv6 address block are used to represent the IPv6 end systems,
   therefore the LIR prefix should be used.  The reason is that the LIR
   prefix can be aggregated in the ISP's border routers and will not
   affect the global IPv6 routing system.  On the other hand, if the
   Well-Known prefix is used, the global IPv4 routing table will be
   inserted into the global IPv6 routing system, which is known to be a
   very bad idea.

   In the stateless mode, it is possible to use LIR prefix to represent
   the IPv6 addresses in the IPv4 Internet and use Well-Known prefix to
   represent the IPv4 addresses in the IPv6 Internet.  However, this is
   also a bad idea.  The reason is that there will be two possible IPv6
   addresses to represent a single IPv4 host, i.e. if the IPv4 address
   is used by a host in the IPv4 Internet, a Well-Known prefix should be
   used; if the IPv4 address (as IVI6) is used by a host in the IPv6
   Internet, a LIR prefix should be used.  The IVI6 hosts must know
   which one to use in order to communicate with that host.  However, if
   the LIR prefix is used in both representations, this problem is
   solved by the "more specific win" routing principle.

   The potential leakage of the IPv6 more specifics introduced by using
   LIR prefix could be controlled by ISP's general routing practice,
   since this specific is the same compared with other more specifics
   inside ISP's autonomous system.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-behave-v4v6-framework-02

regards,

xing

> regards, marcelo
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Which document we should based on is another discussion. ;-)
>>>
>> In the draft-baker-behave-v4v6-framework-02.txt, it summarizes both 
>> the stateless and the stateful modes of the translator, while the 
>> others only address the stateful mode.
>>
>> xing
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Behave mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>
>

_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

---

From: "Durand, Alain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:58:51 -0700

I apologize for this message my new phone thought it should sent for me.

  - Alain.

On 3/27/09 11:38 AM, "Alain Durand" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Cc: Behave WG <[email-masked]>; Hiroshi MIYATA <[email-masked]>; Fred Baker
> <[email-masked]>; Behave Chairs <[email-masked]>