May I know what's the reason to against stateful other than stateless? -Hui
2011/9/26 Rajiv Asati (rajiva) <[email protected]> > > > tunneling). It may be that the recommendation is specifically against > > *stateful* double translation > > That may be reasonable. And the document may reflect that. > > > > > > IETF recommends using dual-stack or tunneling based solutions > for > > > > IPv6 transition and specifically recommends against deployments > > > > utilizing double protocol translation. Use of BIH together > with a > > > > NAT64 is NOT RECOMMENDED [RFC6180]. > > One could suggest rephrasing that para with something like this - > > This document doesn't recommend using BIH together with NAT64 > [RFC6180]. Of course, the adoption of this or any solution (e.g > dual-stack and/or any solution that eases the path to IPv6 > (and accommodate residual IPv4)) would be subjected to the > overall cost-effectiveness, as determined by operators per their > environments/constraints. > > Cheers, > Rajiv > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf > > Of [email protected] > > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 11:20 AM > > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Softwires] [BEHAVE] Last > Call:<draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih- > > 06.txt> (Dual Stack Hosts Using"Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)) to Proposed > Standard > > > > Please note that this statement was included after quite long and > heated > > discussion in behave WG and because it came clear that IETF > recommendation > > is against double protocol translation (in favor of dual-stack and > > tunneling). It may be that the recommendation is specifically against > > *stateful* double translation (although that was not said aloud, if I > recall > > correctly). > > > > I would assume softwires follows these same IETF guidelines and > therefore is > > now focusing solely on stateless approaches(?). If the IETF opinion > has > > changed so that also stateful double translation solutions are now ok > for > > IETF, then that should perhaps be reflected in this document as well. > > > > Unfortunately, I did not have chance to go to softwires interim, but > please > > let us know if the discussions there impact also the quoted > recommendation. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Teemu > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > > > Behalf Of ext Satoru Matsushima > > > Sent: 13. syyskuuta 2011 06:51 > > > To: [email protected] > > > Cc: [email protected]; Satoru Matsushima > > > Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06.txt> > (Dual > > > Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)) to Proposed Standard > > > > > > The introduction in the draft says: > > > > > > > > > > IETF recommends using dual-stack or tunneling based solutions > for > > > > IPv6 transition and specifically recommends against deployments > > > > utilizing double protocol translation. Use of BIH together > with a > > > > NAT64 is NOT RECOMMENDED [RFC6180]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This statement makes a strong obstacle when we develop stateless > solution > > > with translation in softwires wg. > > > I think that it is still remained a room to make decision whether > removing > > the > > > statement or remaining it. > > > The discussion which we'll have in the softwires interim meeting > would be > > > helpful to decide it. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > --satoru > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2011/08/31, at 22:53, The IESG wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The IESG has received a request from the Behavior Engineering for > > > > Hindrance Avoidance WG (behave) to consider the following > document: > > > > - 'Dual Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)' > > > > <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06.txt> as a Proposed Standard > > > > > > > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and > solicits > > > > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to > the > > > > [email protected] mailing lists by 2011-09-14. Exceptionally, comments > may > > > > be sent to [email protected] instead. In either case, please retain > the > > > > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > > > > > > > Abstract > > > > > > > > > > > > Bump-In-the-Host (BIH) is a host-based IPv4 to IPv6 protocol > > > > translation mechanism that allows a class of IPv4-only > applications > > > > that work through NATs to communicate with IPv6-only peers. The > host > > > > on which applications are running may be connected to IPv6-only > or > > > > dual-stack access networks. BIH hides IPv6 and makes the > IPv4-only > > > > applications think they are talking with IPv4 peers by local > > > > synthesis of IPv4 addresses. This draft obsoletes RFC 2767 and > RFC > > > > 3338. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The file can be obtained via > > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih/ > > > > > > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih/ > > > > > > > > > > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Behave mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Behave mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave > _______________________________________________ > Behave mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave >
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
