Le 2012-03-15 à 11:45, Maoke a écrit : > i understand NAT64 makes translation between arbitrary IPv6 address to > arbitrary IPv4 address. i don't understand how you make CNP in any IPv6 > address.
> in other words, we cannot limit NAT64 stateful service only serve those IPv6 > addresses with CNP. That's no the case at all(!). A NAT64+ is a *backward compatible* extension of NAT64 (everything that worked before still works completely unchanged). The draft says: "NAT64+: An ISP NAT64 of [RFC6146] that is upgraded to support 4rd tunneling when IPv6 addresses it deals with have the 4rd-IPv6-address format." Because 4rd IPv6 addresses of CEs are distinguishable from all other IPv6 addresses (due to the V octet), NAT64s are concerned with CNPs ONLY for addresses that actually are 4rd CE addresses. RD > - maoke > > 2012/3/15 Rémi Després <[email protected]> > > 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
