Fred,
Thank you very much for the comments.
Questions to you:
If a CPE-1 has private IPv6 addresses for its ports behind NAT, and CPE-2 has
IPv4 address, can CPE-1 communicate with CPE-2 by the NAT's IPv4 address?
Linda
-Original Message-
From: Fred Baker
Fred,
How does my phone (being IPv6 address) communicate with a web server that is
IPv4 public address?
Linda
-Original Message-
From: Fred Baker [mailto:fredbaker.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2018 5:42 PM
To: Linda Dunbar
Cc: tom petch ; Joel Jaeggli ;
> On Nov 5, 2018, at 5:40 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
>
> If a CPE-1 has private IPv6 addresses for its ports behind NAT, and CPE-2 has
> IPv4 address, can CPE-1 communicate with CPE-2 by the NAT's IPv4 address?
There is no such thing as an IPv6 private address. I'm not sure how to respond
to
Even a NAT64 is not needed. What we do now is we go to a GW (lets call it like
this for now) and the GW rewrites the outer header of the tunnel srcIP and
dstIP from v4 to v6 or vice versa. It is kind of decap/encap operation on the
outer header as if you terminate the tunnel and reinitiate the
The semantics on how to handle this is a different discussion. I believe the
basic operation needs to be understood first. After we can see how this should
be signaled.
On 05/11/2018, 23:23, "Linda Dunbar" wrote:
So we need to add another type to the subTLV: Mapping (for the scenario of
I also share bad feelings here ...
Do it natively with IPv6, no mappings, nothing strange. It will also make
possible for existing hardware, to do offload in the chipsets, which I don't
think you're considering.
I also feel really weird that you are writing Ipv6 instead of IPv6, no reason
for
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 01:06:52AM +, Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
wrote:
> Even a NAT64 is not needed. What we do now is we go to a GW (lets call it
> like this for now) and the GW rewrites the outer header of the tunnel srcIP
> and dstIP from v4 to v6 or vice versa. It is
