Subject: comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:04:42 -0700

Section 3.1:
The taxonomy is missing several unfortunately common cases.

a)      What if a human types in the address?

b)      What about a URL with an IP literal that you get in email or an instant message?

c)       What about apps that "hard code" addresses (e.g., in a config file)?

In the paragraph on referrals, I think "nodes" should be "applications" thoughout.

Section 3.2
Re "... it seems unlikely
that v4-only nodes will have a strong need to communicate with v6-
only nodes (at least at the initial stages of v6 deployment)."
It depends on what you mean by v6-only.  If it's a dual-stack node that can't get
a public IPv4 address, that doesn't seem unlikely.

Typo "or f other"
Typo "need to e modified"

Re "NAT64 box internally.  The last case, where the v4 node has public
address and the NAT64 box has a private address seems harder to
justify though."
Just put a normal (carrier grade) NAT between the NAT64 and the internet
and you have this case starting from the Public v4/Public v4 case.

Section 4.1
Re "unless explicitly stated in the particular requirement.  The
translation mechanism MAY require changes to v6-only nodes."
Clarify.  What does v6-only node mean?  Not IPv4-capable?
Connected to an IPv6-only network?

-Dave

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:57:39 -0600

Slightly off topic, but I just came cross 2 articles that try to explain to 
the public what the v6-to-v4 issue is about and seem to indicate that this 
will be very big in Dublin: 

Take a look at these, they are both very heavy with quotes (or are written 
by) people involved with v6 but not this discussion. 

After staunch resistance, NAT may come to IPv6 after all By Iljitsch van 
Beijnum - 
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080722-after-staunch-resistance-nat-m 
ay-come-to-ipv6-after-all.html	
	
Much-maligned feature being added to IPv6
Standards body weighs network address translators for next-gen Internet
By Carolyn Duffy Marsan - 
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/072108-ipv6nat.html (quotes Fred 
Baker) IETF Chair Russ Housley says NATs are "necessary for a smooth 
transition from IPv4 to IPv6." 

These seems to be saying that v6NAT will be added, but if you read through 
both articles it is more of the 6to4 issue with a bad marketing slant. 

We need to watch this or we will be fighting inappropriate expectations.
Eric

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:54:19 +1200

Eric, please don't use the abbreviation "6to4" except for
RFC 3056, otherwise people will get very confused.

Frankly we can't expect headline writers at the trade rags
to capture the subtleties of this debate. All the actual
quotes from Russ in Carolyn's article seem fine, and
obviously what Iljitsch writes is correct.

    Brian

On 2008-07-29 01:57, [email-masked] wrote:
> Slightly off topic, but I just came cross 2 articles that try to explain
> to the public what the v6-to-v4 issue is about and seem to indicate that
> this will be very big in Dublin:
> Take a look at these, they are both very heavy with quotes (or are
> written by) people involved with v6 but not this discussion.
> These seems to be saying that v6NAT will be added, but if you read
> through both articles it is more of the 6to4 issue with a bad marketing
> slant.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:57:02 +1200

Brian

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:22:07 -0600