Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject)

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 05:52:08 -0400

>> Cameron, NAT64 also requires ALGs.
> No, only for protocols that don't do their own NAT traversal.

this is engineering, not marketing.  the answer is

  yes, for protocols which do not do their own nat traversal

which is a non-trivial set

> FTP is a special case

and there are others, though many not as bad as ftp

i need nat64, but i need one where the difficulties are not glossed
over, please.

randy

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:28:38 -0700

> i need nat64, but i need one where the difficulties are not glossed

Perhaps something for BEHAVE's "Analysis of NAT-PT considerations with
IPv6/IPv4 translation" milestone, which is the response to v6ops's RFC4966.
Should that document describe the problem generally, or enumerate
applications which break and which work?

-d

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 18:13:43 +0200

> applications which break and which work?

The obvious place to start such a list would be with all applications that don't work through NAT. However, the problem is more subtle than that: applications that are running over IPv6 generally don't _try_ to work through NATs in the first place. NAT64 traversal will probably require special case logic or very high levels of IP version agnosticism, which aren't that common from my vantage point.

I'm not convinced though that the NAT64 is the place to solve this with an ALG. We had this discussion relating to FTP, and the rough consensus certainly pointed towards updating clients and/or servers. For instance, updating a SIP server so it understands that a client that appears to use IPv4 is actually on IPv6 is probably more productive than trying to fix this in an ALG. Especially as an ALG could easily end up ruining things for updated clients and servers that would otherwise be able to traverse the NAT64.

FTP is an interesting special case because it uses IPv4 literals in common situations but the actual value of those addresses can / should be ignored. In most protocols, ignoring is probably not the solution, making an ALG much harder to get to work.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:50:58 -0400

> applications which break and which work?

maybe up-level and a general checklist for NATx which could then be
profiled for a particular nat mess

randy

---

From: Reinaldo Penno <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:58:58 -0400

There is already some discussion in the document talking about NAT traversal
and ALGs. We point out the problem is generic to any NAT and not specific to
NAPT-PT as the original RFC seemed to imply.

As far as ALGs goes, due to the variety of possible NAT64 deployments
(enterprise, wireline, wireless, mixed, managed, etc) we have to support 20
or so NAT64 ALGs. 

I'm not saying we should standardize ALGs, just giving feedback of what
looks like out there.

Thanks,

Reinaldo

On 9/23/10 11:50 AM, "Randy Bush" <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 08:19:54 +0800

Dear all,

NAT64is a very important and practical method. However, it does have some 
limitation seemly unsurmountable, maybe there is alwo some other ways out? 

Bests, Linfeng
ZTE Corporation

Reinaldo Penno <[email-masked]> 
发件人:  [email-masked]
2010-09-24 02:58

收件人
Randy Bush <[email-masked]>, Dan Wing <[email-masked]>
抄送
'IPv6 Ops WG' <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
主题
Re: [BEHAVE] applications that break across NAT64

There is already some discussion in the document talking about NAT 
traversal
and ALGs. We point out the problem is generic to any NAT and not specific 
to
NAPT-PT as the original RFC seemed to imply.

As far as ALGs goes, due to the variety of possible NAT64 deployments
(enterprise, wireline, wireless, mixed, managed, etc) we have to support 
20
or so NAT64 ALGs. 

Thanks,

Reinaldo

---

From: "Yiu L. Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:23:59 -0400

Hi Linfeng,

This depends on the scenario you apply NAT64. Some wireless operators have
started serious testing on NAT64, so this matches their requirements. There
are other technologies available designed for different scenarios, you only
need to pick the one fit your requirements.

Thanks,
Yiu

On 9/24/10 8:19 PM, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> 发件人:  [email-masked] 2010-09-24 02:58
> 收件人