Hi, Xing, I look forward to face to face discussions in Paris if we don't clarify everything before that (I will be busy on something else in the next 3 days).
Le 2012-03-18 à 23:39, Xing Li a écrit : ... >> >> A key point is that 4rd doesn't prevent a 4rd-capable dual-stack CE node, >> when it receives no 4rd mapping rule, to exercise single translation. >> Actually, I believe that using for this the BIH of RFC6535 is both >> sufficient and recommendable. >> Translated IPv4 packets, because they are sent from CE nodes to DNS64 >> synthesized addresses, are appropriately routed to their >> destinations. (It can be via the NAT64-CGN if needed, or via more direct >> paths if possible.) >> Anything missed? > > Sorry, this is a misunderstanding. > Hint: Single translation and double translation are based on the same mapping > rule in the CERNET2 deployment. I am well aware of this, but this doesn't explain why 4rd mapping rules similar to those of CERNET2 wouldn't have, like MAP-T, "IPv4 to IPv6 communication (single translation) supported". As said in RFC6219, CERNET hosts have their IPv6 addresses configured "via manual configuration or stateful autoconfiguration via DHCPv6". Hosts can therefore be assigned Interface IDs that have the 4rd-u format (with V octet and CNP). Now, when both addresses happen to be checksum neutral, RFC6145 translation doesn't modify L4 data, so that it doesn't matter whether the DS node has used 4rd-u header mapping or single translation. Thus, IPv6-only hosts can exchange packets with IPv4 applications of 4rd CE nodes. Regards, RD > Regards, > > xing > > >> >> Regards, >> RD >> >> >> >> >> >>> Regards, >>> >>> xing >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> RD >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 2012-02-10 à 04:28, Xing Li a écrit : >>>> ... | | | | | >>>>>>> | 5 | IPv6 web caches work for IPv4 | Y | N | Y | N | >>>>>>> | | packets | | | | | >>>>>> suggest you rename to "IPv4 to IPv6 communication (single translation) >>>>>> supported" >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (2) More clarification should be added here. I am not sure 4rd-H can >>>>> support single translation. >>>>> >>>>> (a) According to (1), 4rd-H does not perform header translation defined >>>>> by RFC6145. >>>>> >>>>> (b) In the softwire mailing list, it seems that 4rd-H cannot support >>>>> single translation. See the thread containing >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg03324.html and >>>>> other posts. >>>>> >>>>> (c) If 4rd-H cannot support single translation, then "IPv6 web caches >>>>> work for IPv4 packets" requires special configurations, it cannot do IPv6 >>>>> web caches for non 4rd-H packets. >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>>> (5) I would like to see the details of how 4rd-H handles ICMP and ICMP >>>>> error messages. In the softwire mailing list there were some discussions. >>>>> See the thread containing >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg03324.html and >>>>> other posts. Please add >>>>> >>>>> | 17 | Handle ICMP (RFC6145) | Y | n/a | ? | ? | >>>> ... >>>> >>> >> > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
