Le 2012-03-15 à 10:59, Rémi Després a écrit : > Maoke, > > Thanks for this question. > This subject being new, I take it on a new thread. > > 2012-03-15 10:38, Maoke: > ... >> i didn't understand the how the stateful NAT64 benefits from CNP. > > The point is that if a NAT64 is upgraded to support 4rd-u tunnels (thus > becoming a NAT64+) it can take IPv6 payloads as valid IPv4 payloads. > Any protocol that this NAT64 supports is then supported e2e for 4rd-u CEs > These CEs need not being dependent on which NAT64 supports which protocols. > > Note that the NAT64 doesn't need to have CNP code. It just happens that host > IPv6 addresses it sees are checksum neutral. (Thus, IPv6 and IPv4 payloads > are the same for all protocols that have ports at the same place as > TCP/UDP/..., and the same checksum algorithm)
Oops. This is only true for the IPv6 host address. To construct an IPv6 address when transmitting to a 4rd-u CE, the NAT64 should compute a CNP. (This is to maintain the property that that middleboxes can treat tunnel packets as valid IPv6 packets. Not a big deal, but necessary). Sorry for having hastily added this sentence. RD > > RD > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
