On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) <raj...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Cameron, > > Very interesting (& clever indeed). > > > How does this clever code ensure that all but a few (pesky apps) > continue to use IPv6 interface instead of the NAT46 interface?
Rajiv, DNS64 is used. So anything that can take a AAAA will use a AAAA and the native IPv6 path, with or without NAT64 -- as needed. If the application itself delivers an IPv4 literal via protocols like MSN or Skype, there is a path and socket made available, that is what this NAT46 code does. As i mentioned before, i don't like this. But, i respect that it works and it solves a real problem for users of these ipv4-only apps. I personally find it easy to live with only IP version agnostic apps that work well in an IPv6-only NAT64/DNS64 network. I have been eating this "dog food" for over 18 months. I am happy to let the market and eco-system punish apps for not supporting IPv6, and for the market to reward apps that do support IPv6. I believe draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06 has too narrow of a scope to be useful since it explicitly does NOT support IPv4-only apps talking to IPv4 servers over an IPv6-only network Cameron > Cheers, > Rajiv > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: behave-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:behave-boun...@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of >> Cameron Byrne >> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:12 PM >> To: Mark Townsley >> Cc: Hui Deng; Softwires-wg list; Behave WG; IETF Discussion; Dan Wing > (dwing) >> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [Softwires] Last Call: > <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih- >> 06.txt> (Dual Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)) to Proposed > Standard >> >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Mark Townsley <m...@townsley.net> > wrote: >> > >> > >> >>> +1 ... since the alternative is that apps that require ipv4 > sockets and >> >>> pass ipv4 literals are stranded on ipv6 only networks. >> >>> >> >>> Running code on the n900 shows that nat464 provides real user and >> >>> network benefit >> > >> > Frankly, I preferred it when you were running IPv6-only without BIH > on your >> trial, providing pressure to get rid of all those stranded literals > and >> pushing apps to open ipv6 sockets :-/ >> > >> > - Mark >> >> We're still doing that, and IPv6-only is still my philosophical >> preference and that is how we are launching the IPv6 + NAT64/DNS64 >> service into the production mobile network (real soon now). No change >> in that path. >> >> But some "power users" wanted their IPv4-only applications like Skype >> to work so they coded a NAT46 work-around for the N900. It is clever, >> it works. >> >> Their process of feeling the pain of a very few pesky IPv4-only apps >> and working around it is all documented here: >> http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=60320 >> >> Running NAT46 code here: http://code.google.com/p/n900ipv6/wiki/Nat64D >> >> In the end (as well as IPv6-only near term in mobile), IP version >> agnostic apps will prove to be more reliable and therefore will get >> more market share. >> >> Cameron >> _______________________________________________ >> Behave mailing list >> beh...@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
