From victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com  Thu Aug  2 15:40:29 2012
Return-Path: <victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 397D511E80A5; Thu,  2 Aug 2012 15:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.235
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id beccnGcz-2zl; Thu,  2 Aug 2012 15:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55F4A11E80A2; Thu,  2 Aug 2012 15:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so80405obb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id:thread-topic :mime-version:content-type; bh=cfkuWQZh+dIlunpesIJneKuPLbg5bjPat9YYu45jf9E=; b=Qdby3yyLz14IhkLaj6axCyUVy2dX4UbjSZ/a16P2wZuR62btF4YyGYTy/btsNaUi2g P9FR3vG6xUlge+7v4Mn3TPZRLf06aW6y0d08CtEDBUYettvSmFCOWGEupl/Y35PKq9WW z24RvnnKRtzBamb0eGHutvNuEixr6j39FQfLA9NokJKZf1iBGBwcWT8KGAmYElssOdn5 bS6lSzq+02/PApZj4AYAfKYfAcuysvFrHUPyAavwyI7jgFq7H/1EZ0SRVKIX3U87Cc3J DW1XL+iLSW+yBCJiNKIZrn4+P3/YP6R2j2ZXkKpj5icmD30BN4Trg2VelkQqrDZFCScx Ya/A==
Received: by 10.60.30.170 with SMTP id t10mr40608345oeh.10.1343947227840; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.129.19.190] (dhcp-13be.meeting.ietf.org. [130.129.19.190]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hz6sm7413083obb.1.2012.08.02.15.40.24 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.0.0.100825
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:40:21 -0700
From: Victor Kuarsingh <victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com>
To: <behave@ietf.org>, <sunset4@ietf.org>, <opsawg@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <CC404FE5.1DA11%victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: Feedback LSN Deployment Draft
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3426766825_19161737"
Subject: [sunset4] Feedback LSN Deployment Draft
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sunset4>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:40:29 -0000

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--B_3426766825_19161737
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

OPSAWG/Behave/Sunset4 WGs,

Following further consideration in OPSAWG, the Chairs have requested
addition opportunity for feedback from the Behave and Sunset4 WGs regarding
draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-00. (link -
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-00)

What we are looking for is technical feedback on the architecture/concepts
defined in the draft.  What we are NOT looking for is opinions on why CGN is
bad.  I expect there may be textual updates needed along with other minor
items. 

There was also a plan to remove the "Performance" section which was
originally added before other drafts were available discussing CGN/NAT444
impacts (like draft-donley-nat444-impacts)

The document presupposes an operator has decided to do CGN/NAT444
(business/technical reasons particular to them) and therefore may require
architectural options on how to deploy this in an existing network.  The
document offers once such option using BGP/MPLS IP VPNs.

I appreciate feedback.

Regards,

Victor K



--B_3426766825_19161737
Content-type: text/html;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: s=
pace; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size:=
 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div>OPSAWG/Behave/Sunset4 WGs,</=
div><div><br></div><div>Following further consideration in OPSAWG, the Chair=
s have requested addition opportunity for feedback from the Behave and Sunse=
t4 WGs regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-00. (link -&nbsp;<a href=3D"=
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-00">http://tools=
.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-00</a>)</div><div><br></div>=
<div>What we are looking for is technical feedback on the architecture/conce=
pts defined in the draft. &nbsp;What we are NOT looking for is opinions on w=
hy CGN is bad. &nbsp;I expect there may be textual updates needed along with=
 other minor items.&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>There was also a plan to =
remove the "Performance" section which was originally added before other dra=
fts were available discussing CGN/NAT444 impacts (like&nbsp;draft-donley-nat=
444-impacts)</div><div><br></div><div>The document presupposes an operator h=
as decided to do CGN/NAT444 (business/technical reasons particular to them) =
and therefore may require architectural options on how to deploy this in an =
existing network. &nbsp;The document offers once such option using BGP/MPLS =
IP VPNs.</div><div><br></div><div>I appreciate feedback.</div><div><br></div=
><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Victor K</div></body></html>

--B_3426766825_19161737--



From internet-drafts@ietf.org  Mon Aug  6 07:32:36 2012
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3BDE21F84D6; Mon,  6 Aug 2012 07:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9YrC3B6lUQaH; Mon,  6 Aug 2012 07:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A9ED21F84CF; Mon,  6 Aug 2012 07:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.33
Message-ID: <20120806143236.26765.65558.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 07:32:36 -0700
Cc: sunset4@ietf.org
Subject: [sunset4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis-00.txt
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sunset4>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 14:32:37 -0000

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director=
ies.
 This draft is a work item of the Sunsetting IPv4 Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Gap Analysis for IPv4 Sunset
	Author(s)       : Jean-Philippe Dionne
                          Simon Perreault
                          Tina Tsou
	Filename        : draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis-00.txt
	Pages           : 7
	Date            : 2012-08-06

Abstract:
   Sunsetting IPv4 refers to the process of turning off IPv4
   definitively.  It can be seen as the final phase of the migration to
   IPv6.  This memo analyses difficulties arising when sunsetting IPv4,
   and identifies the gaps resulting in additional work.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis-00


Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/


From simon.perreault@viagenie.ca  Mon Aug  6 07:43:08 2012
Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ADC621F8617 for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon,  6 Aug 2012 07:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.549
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.051,  BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OZxuCFAn3k03 for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon,  6 Aug 2012 07:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000:226:55ff:fe57:14db]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 550C521F84CD for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Mon,  6 Aug 2012 07:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from porto.nomis80.org (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:c56:28e4:6d5c:90dc]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BEF8340061 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Mon,  6 Aug 2012 10:43:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <501FD7FA.5050500@viagenie.ca>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:43:06 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sunset4@ietf.org
References: <20120806143236.26765.65558.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120806143236.26765.65558.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [sunset4] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis-00.txt
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sunset4>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 14:43:08 -0000

Name change only. No text changes.

Simon

Le 2012-08-06 10:32, internet-drafts@ietf.org a écrit :
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>   This draft is a work item of the Sunsetting IPv4 Working Group of the IETF.
>
> 	Title           : Gap Analysis for IPv4 Sunset
> 	Author(s)       : Jean-Philippe Dionne
>                            Simon Perreault
>                            Tina Tsou
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis-00.txt
> 	Pages           : 7
> 	Date            : 2012-08-06
>
> Abstract:
>     Sunsetting IPv4 refers to the process of turning off IPv4
>     definitively.  It can be seen as the final phase of the migration to
>     IPv6.  This memo analyses difficulties arising when sunsetting IPv4,
>     and identifies the gaps resulting in additional work.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis
>
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis-00
>
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> sunset4 mailing list
> sunset4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
>


-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

From marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca  Mon Aug  6 10:26:31 2012
Return-Path: <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB88911E809A for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon,  6 Aug 2012 10:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000,  BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CBnE95YwZ4-9 for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon,  6 Aug 2012 10:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000:226:55ff:fe57:14db]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62D7C11E808E for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Mon,  6 Aug 2012 10:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2620::230:c000:4c54:8d0c:3009:b869] (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:4c54:8d0c:3009:b869]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A7D084159A for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Mon,  6 Aug 2012 13:26:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 13:26:29 -0400
Message-Id: <CFAA64D3-F4FF-4C7F-BB1F-B36F68E150E0@viagenie.ca>
To: sunset4@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Subject: [sunset4] sunset4 meeting minutes
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sunset4>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 17:26:32 -0000

Hello,
 please find the IETF84 sunset4 wg meeting minutes: =
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-sunset4.  Thanks =
to the jabber room note takers.=20

Please send any modifications to the chairs =
(sunset4-chairs@tools.ietf.org).

Regards, Marc & Wes.=

From simon.perreault@viagenie.ca  Wed Aug 22 08:53:34 2012
Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E60AE21F85A3 for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.24
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.24 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.240,  BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MKwYIo1t3H9L for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000:226:55ff:fe57:14db]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FA4521F859F for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from porto.nomis80.org (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:6ca5:e542:5b44:7b06]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 63CCF414F9 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:53:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <5035007C.2070809@viagenie.ca>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:53:32 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "sunset4@ietf.org" <sunset4@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [sunset4] An IPv4 sunset problem (?)
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sunset4>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:53:35 -0000

Sunsetters,

Recently there has been discussion in v6ops about a problem that arises 
when a network infrastructure featuring NAT64+DNS64 is used by IPv6-only 
as well as dual-stack hosts. The problem is that you want the IPv6-only 
hosts to use the DNS64 but not the dual-stack hosts.

This is a well-known problem that has been discussed in behave and for 
which there is a solution that involves the hosts 
(draft-ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic), and another that involves 
only the network (provision different DNS resolver addresses to 
IPv6-only and dual-stack hosts). Those solutions may not apply in many 
cases: the first solution requires that all hosts be modified, while the 
second solution requires that one be able to differentiate IPv6-only 
from dual-stack hosts.

Question for the WG: should this be discussed in 
draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis? If so, we would appreciate additional 
input. Additional solution ideas would also be appreciated...

Thanks,
Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

From cb.list6@gmail.com  Wed Aug 22 09:19:58 2012
Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F218521F85C4 for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.117
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.117 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.118, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ej7Iqppewc7b for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 107EE21F849B for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lahm15 with SMTP id m15so699745lah.31 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=QooQudR8wSZguw3RrDKOJGb5k/wOP87ny5xyuI2oPIo=; b=K+Dp7nCwHz1SVGrzF01KZtHeSbgOwnjce2xgdYkTO87sNObIKLydACcR/zdtjMOp2h uDrXRvwOV/D7KbZHb0Cn/kEWsspFFVKRvrHHmiweduToAjDPx8dvNe9fKx1jbBy0lO4H oJe3k3wdE7ZAHdylhm23JdYV9ooxnZRmupy/WWzi6LbM/x6ySFipmswk/oN8zixkxRws lkrxWQ7JZpobccpi6jIzzzYJdvV9Pk8JeHAeCGJyhKxwltnmb9flBsn59G3I4tLEH4RH QPSiqpCuOj7aeGcNvCysGWBr9GGFTwG0A5EbOQAmdOS5UGazxaIQv4fCvAV2ZtlS20WH siyA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.125.116 with SMTP id mp20mr21744740lab.19.1345652396696; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.49.66 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5035007C.2070809@viagenie.ca>
References: <5035007C.2070809@viagenie.ca>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:19:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGRbgCWM9wx1KkbKwjM7eRGxDZEnwE_Ggkv2eecn+bW+OA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "sunset4@ietf.org" <sunset4@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sunset4] An IPv4 sunset problem (?)
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sunset4>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:19:59 -0000

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Simon Perreault
<simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> wrote:
> Sunsetters,
>
> Recently there has been discussion in v6ops about a problem that arises when
> a network infrastructure featuring NAT64+DNS64 is used by IPv6-only as well
> as dual-stack hosts. The problem is that you want the IPv6-only hosts to use
> the DNS64 but not the dual-stack hosts.
>

Is it enough to say "don't do that"?

I don't believe the IETF should take on this problem

CB

> This is a well-known problem that has been discussed in behave and for which
> there is a solution that involves the hosts
> (draft-ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic), and another that involves
> only the network (provision different DNS resolver addresses to IPv6-only
> and dual-stack hosts). Those solutions may not apply in many cases: the
> first solution requires that all hosts be modified, while the second
> solution requires that one be able to differentiate IPv6-only from
> dual-stack hosts.
>
> Question for the WG: should this be discussed in
> draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis? If so, we would appreciate additional input.
> Additional solution ideas would also be appreciated...
>
> Thanks,
> Simon
> --
> DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
> NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
> STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
> _______________________________________________
> sunset4 mailing list
> sunset4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4

From marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca  Wed Aug 22 09:24:09 2012
Return-Path: <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BA0021F85DA for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.8
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.800, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GtCsZrpwEOtg for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000:226:55ff:fe57:14db]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90DEF21F84C4 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2620::230:c000:957f:fb4a:6ce6:24d8] (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:957f:fb4a:6ce6:24d8]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 93C604161B; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:24:07 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGRbgCWM9wx1KkbKwjM7eRGxDZEnwE_Ggkv2eecn+bW+OA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:24:06 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <24D6B6BD-C926-4AD6-93E6-D0BB054AE1E2@viagenie.ca>
References: <5035007C.2070809@viagenie.ca> <CAD6AjGRbgCWM9wx1KkbKwjM7eRGxDZEnwE_Ggkv2eecn+bW+OA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>, "sunset4@ietf.org" <sunset4@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sunset4] An IPv4 sunset problem (?)
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sunset4>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:24:09 -0000

Le 2012-08-22 =E0 12:19, Cameron Byrne a =E9crit :

> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Simon Perreault
> <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> wrote:
>> Sunsetters,
>>=20
>> Recently there has been discussion in v6ops about a problem that =
arises when
>> a network infrastructure featuring NAT64+DNS64 is used by IPv6-only =
as well
>> as dual-stack hosts. The problem is that you want the IPv6-only hosts =
to use
>> the DNS64 but not the dual-stack hosts.
>>=20
>=20
> Is it enough to say "don't do that"?

looks to me as too simplistic.  The scenario described is in fact very =
likely to happen.

>=20
> I don't believe the IETF should take on this problem

the gap analysis may state the problem (and reference the proposed =
solutions).=20
But the IETF may decide to take or not take on the problem. =20

Marc.

>=20
> CB
>=20
>> This is a well-known problem that has been discussed in behave and =
for which
>> there is a solution that involves the hosts
>> (draft-ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic), and another that =
involves
>> only the network (provision different DNS resolver addresses to =
IPv6-only
>> and dual-stack hosts). Those solutions may not apply in many cases: =
the
>> first solution requires that all hosts be modified, while the second
>> solution requires that one be able to differentiate IPv6-only from
>> dual-stack hosts.
>>=20
>> Question for the WG: should this be discussed in
>> draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis? If so, we would appreciate additional =
input.
>> Additional solution ideas would also be appreciated...
>>=20
>> Thanks,
>> Simon
>> --
>> DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
>> NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
>> STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
>> _______________________________________________
>> sunset4 mailing list
>> sunset4@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
> _______________________________________________
> sunset4 mailing list
> sunset4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4


From ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz  Wed Aug 22 09:34:34 2012
Return-Path: <ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFDDA21F8629 for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.945
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.945 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.295,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_CZ=0.445, HOST_EQ_CZ=0.904, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hp6FDZko4fh8 for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhub1.t-mobile.cz (mailhub1.t-mobile.cz [62.141.0.149]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EE0421F8625 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from srvhk504.rdm.cz (unknown [10.254.92.81]) by mailhub1.t-mobile.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 846492857FA; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:34:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from SRVHKE02.rdm.cz ([fe80::94ce:8456:f6fa:86a8]) by srvhk504.rdm.cz ([fe80::744e:351e:b5b:fd01%12]) with mapi; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:34:33 +0200
From: =?utf-8?B?VsOtemRhbCBBbGXFoQ==?= <ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz>
To: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:37:44 +0200
Thread-Topic: [sunset4] An IPv4 sunset problem (?)
Thread-Index: Ac2AgpDeRKWgDo2KTOyIv5cpScJTIgAATK5w
Message-ID: <1808340F7EC362469DDFFB112B37E2FCC681D924E1@SRVHKE02.rdm.cz>
References: <5035007C.2070809@viagenie.ca> <CAD6AjGRbgCWM9wx1KkbKwjM7eRGxDZEnwE_Ggkv2eecn+bW+OA@mail.gmail.com> <24D6B6BD-C926-4AD6-93E6-D0BB054AE1E2@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <24D6B6BD-C926-4AD6-93E6-D0BB054AE1E2@viagenie.ca>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Forwarded
Cc: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>, "sunset4@ietf.org" <sunset4@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sunset4] An IPv4 sunset problem (?)
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sunset4>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:34:34 -0000
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From simon.perreault@viagenie.ca  Wed Aug 22 09:40:57 2012
Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA2FA21F8674 for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.085
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.085 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.385, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NVxfXRIsuUGV for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000:226:55ff:fe57:14db]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4490621F866E for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from porto.nomis80.org (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:6ca5:e542:5b44:7b06]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 692644161B; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:40:56 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <50350B97.70406@viagenie.ca>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:40:55 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?VsOtemRhbCBBbGXFoQ==?= <ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz>
References: <5035007C.2070809@viagenie.ca> <CAD6AjGRbgCWM9wx1KkbKwjM7eRGxDZEnwE_Ggkv2eecn+bW+OA@mail.gmail.com> <24D6B6BD-C926-4AD6-93E6-D0BB054AE1E2@viagenie.ca> <1808340F7EC362469DDFFB112B37E2FCC681D924E1@SRVHKE02.rdm.cz>
In-Reply-To: <1808340F7EC362469DDFFB112B37E2FCC681D924E1@SRVHKE02.rdm.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>, "sunset4@ietf.org" <sunset4@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sunset4] An IPv4 sunset problem (?)
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sunset4>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:40:57 -0000

Le 2012-08-22 12:37, Vízdal Aleš a écrit :
>>>> Recently there has been discussion in v6ops about a problem that arises when
>>>> a network infrastructure featuring NAT64+DNS64 is used by IPv6-only as well
>>>> as dual-stack hosts. The problem is that you want the IPv6-only hosts to use
>>>> the DNS64 but not the dual-stack hosts.
>>>
>>> Is it enough to say "don't do that"?
>>
>> looks to me as too simplistic.  The scenario described is in fact very likely to happen.
>
> Given that the SP has a control over the DNS information (resolvers) provided to its
> customers I believe it could happen as an error case, but not as the intention. I am
> assuming that there are separate DNS servers running to serve dual-stack customers
> and NAT64 enabled ones.

Right. This corresponds to the second solution I described, which 
depends on the ISP's ability to differentiate IPv6-only from dual-stack 
hosts. In many cases it is impractical.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

From marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca  Wed Aug 22 09:45:54 2012
Return-Path: <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E18B21F8606 for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.64
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.64 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.640, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S8hRjMFVqoNN for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000:226:55ff:fe57:14db]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C7E021F85BB for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2620::230:c000:957f:fb4a:6ce6:24d8] (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:957f:fb4a:6ce6:24d8]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5FBEC45CD6; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:45:52 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <50350B97.70406@viagenie.ca>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:45:51 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <038167A9-3143-4DBA-8889-7A97E60EC9E9@viagenie.ca>
References: <5035007C.2070809@viagenie.ca> <CAD6AjGRbgCWM9wx1KkbKwjM7eRGxDZEnwE_Ggkv2eecn+bW+OA@mail.gmail.com> <24D6B6BD-C926-4AD6-93E6-D0BB054AE1E2@viagenie.ca> <1808340F7EC362469DDFFB112B37E2FCC681D924E1@SRVHKE02.rdm.cz> <50350B97.70406@viagenie.ca>
To: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>, =?windows-1252?Q?V=EDzdal_Ale=9A?= <ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz>
Subject: Re: [sunset4] An IPv4 sunset problem (?)
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sunset4>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:45:54 -0000

Le 2012-08-22 =E0 12:40, Simon Perreault a =E9crit :

> Le 2012-08-22 12:37, V=EDzdal Ale=9A a =E9crit :
>>>>> Recently there has been discussion in v6ops about a problem that =
arises when
>>>>> a network infrastructure featuring NAT64+DNS64 is used by =
IPv6-only as well
>>>>> as dual-stack hosts. The problem is that you want the IPv6-only =
hosts to use
>>>>> the DNS64 but not the dual-stack hosts.
>>>>=20
>>>> Is it enough to say "don't do that"?
>>>=20
>>> looks to me as too simplistic.  The scenario described is in fact =
very likely to happen.
>>=20
>> Given that the SP has a control over the DNS information (resolvers) =
provided to its
>> customers I believe it could happen as an error case, but not as the =
intention. I am
>> assuming that there are separate DNS servers running to serve =
dual-stack customers
>> and NAT64 enabled ones.
>=20
> Right. This corresponds to the second solution I described, which =
depends on the ISP's ability to differentiate IPv6-only from dual-stack =
hosts. In many cases it is impractical.

- there are many other places where the provisioning is not that =
controlled: think about an Internet caf=E9.=20

Marc.

>=20
> Simon
> --=20
> DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
> NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
> STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
> _______________________________________________
> sunset4 mailing list
> sunset4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4


From mohamed.boucadair@orange.com  Wed Aug 22 09:54:34 2012
Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13AB221F860B for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.758
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.758 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.110, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BCB8WRSYlk2P for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:54:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C7C221F85B1 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:54:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id E0FCE22D14D; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:54:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCH11.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.27]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id C61CB23806B; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:54:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.9]) by PUEXCH11.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.27]) with mapi; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:54:10 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>, "sunset4@ietf.org" <sunset4@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:54:09 +0200
Thread-Topic: [sunset4] An IPv4 sunset problem (?)
Thread-Index: Ac2Afj5F+3uXMSPnSGiUg6SUbV8quAAB72xA
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E52298D9D@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <5035007C.2070809@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <5035007C.2070809@viagenie.ca>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.8.22.153316
Subject: Re: [sunset4] An IPv4 sunset problem (?)
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sunset4>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:54:34 -0000

Hi Simon,

This issue has been already documented in depth in http://tools.ietf.org/ht=
ml/draft-ietf-behave-nat64-learn-analysis-03.

I'm not sure if there is a value to re-discuss this point in the gap analys=
is document.

Cheers,
Med
=20

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : sunset4-bounces@ietf.org=20
>[mailto:sunset4-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Simon Perreault
>Envoy=E9 : mercredi 22 ao=FBt 2012 17:54
>=C0 : sunset4@ietf.org
>Objet : [sunset4] An IPv4 sunset problem (?)
>
>Sunsetters,
>
>Recently there has been discussion in v6ops about a problem=20
>that arises=20
>when a network infrastructure featuring NAT64+DNS64 is used by=20
>IPv6-only=20
>as well as dual-stack hosts. The problem is that you want the=20
>IPv6-only=20
>hosts to use the DNS64 but not the dual-stack hosts.
>
>This is a well-known problem that has been discussed in behave and for=20
>which there is a solution that involves the hosts=20
>(draft-ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic), and another=20
>that involves=20
>only the network (provision different DNS resolver addresses to=20
>IPv6-only and dual-stack hosts). Those solutions may not apply in many=20
>cases: the first solution requires that all hosts be modified,=20
>while the=20
>second solution requires that one be able to differentiate IPv6-only=20
>from dual-stack hosts.
>
>Question for the WG: should this be discussed in=20
>draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis? If so, we would appreciate additional=20
>input. Additional solution ideas would also be appreciated...
>
>Thanks,
>Simon
>--=20
>DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
>NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
>STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
>_______________________________________________
>sunset4 mailing list
>sunset4@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
>=

From simon.perreault@viagenie.ca  Wed Aug 22 09:56:12 2012
Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6541721F85B1 for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:56:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.529
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.529 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071,  BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mIm2Ldm7bHrn for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:56:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000:226:55ff:fe57:14db]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E997D21F84C8 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from porto.nomis80.org (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:6ca5:e542:5b44:7b06]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EE501425F4; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:56:10 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <50350F2A.70607@viagenie.ca>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:56:10 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
References: <5035007C.2070809@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E52298D9D@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E52298D9D@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "sunset4@ietf.org" <sunset4@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sunset4] An IPv4 sunset problem (?)
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sunset4>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:56:12 -0000

Le 2012-08-22 12:54, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com a écrit :
> This issue has been already documented in depth in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-nat64-learn-analysis-03.

This corresponds to the first solution I described. It requires that all 
hosts be modified to be able to discover the NAT64 prefix. This is often 
impractical.

Thanks,
Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

From marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca  Wed Aug 22 09:59:06 2012
Return-Path: <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FA9E21F8630 for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.533
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.533, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2TbQEjTfZZ0v for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000:226:55ff:fe57:14db]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8072621F8629 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2620::230:c000:957f:fb4a:6ce6:24d8] (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:957f:fb4a:6ce6:24d8]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 64D4B4161B; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:58:58 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E52298D9D@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:58:56 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4162EB5D-6A40-4C23-A53B-1C1BA7D4CF5F@viagenie.ca>
References: <5035007C.2070809@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E52298D9D@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
To: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>, "sunset4@ietf.org" <sunset4@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sunset4] An IPv4 sunset problem (?)
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sunset4>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:59:06 -0000

Le 2012-08-22 =E0 12:54, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> a =E9crit :

> Hi Simon,
>=20
> This issue has been already documented in depth in =
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-nat64-learn-analysis-03.
>=20

maybe, but for a document (gap analysis) that should state potential =
issues when turning IPv4 off in a network, I think that issue (two sets =
of stacks in an IPv6-only network with NAT64)  is relevant to be listed. =
=20

Maybe it is a short paragraph that points to the others (such as the one =
you are referencing to), so we avoid multiple discussions. I leave it to =
the editors to review the referenced texts and write whatever is =
appropriate.

Marc.

> I'm not sure if there is a value to re-discuss this point in the gap =
analysis document.
>=20
> Cheers,
> Med
>=20
>=20
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : sunset4-bounces@ietf.org=20
>> [mailto:sunset4-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Simon Perreault
>> Envoy=E9 : mercredi 22 ao=FBt 2012 17:54
>> =C0 : sunset4@ietf.org
>> Objet : [sunset4] An IPv4 sunset problem (?)
>>=20
>> Sunsetters,
>>=20
>> Recently there has been discussion in v6ops about a problem=20
>> that arises=20
>> when a network infrastructure featuring NAT64+DNS64 is used by=20
>> IPv6-only=20
>> as well as dual-stack hosts. The problem is that you want the=20
>> IPv6-only=20
>> hosts to use the DNS64 but not the dual-stack hosts.
>>=20
>> This is a well-known problem that has been discussed in behave and =
for=20
>> which there is a solution that involves the hosts=20
>> (draft-ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic), and another=20
>> that involves=20
>> only the network (provision different DNS resolver addresses to=20
>> IPv6-only and dual-stack hosts). Those solutions may not apply in =
many=20
>> cases: the first solution requires that all hosts be modified,=20
>> while the=20
>> second solution requires that one be able to differentiate IPv6-only=20=

>> from dual-stack hosts.
>>=20
>> Question for the WG: should this be discussed in=20
>> draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis? If so, we would appreciate additional=20=

>> input. Additional solution ideas would also be appreciated...
>>=20
>> Thanks,
>> Simon
>> --=20
>> DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
>> NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
>> STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
>> _______________________________________________
>> sunset4 mailing list
>> sunset4@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
>>=20
> _______________________________________________
> sunset4 mailing list
> sunset4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4


From mohamed.boucadair@orange.com  Wed Aug 22 22:43:04 2012
Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D62E21F8456 for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 22:43:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.756
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.756 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.108, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s8aQRcxPXaxr for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 22:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A81A421F8455 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 22:43:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.3]) by omfedm13.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 63493324B51; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:43:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCH51.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.31]) by omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 48D724C017; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:43:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.9]) by PUEXCH51.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.31]) with mapi; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:42:40 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:42:38 +0200
Thread-Topic: [sunset4] An IPv4 sunset problem (?)
Thread-Index: Ac2Ah2CXZvWVrr/gShyPYvlupBl7WwAae5Og
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5332A6C7@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <5035007C.2070809@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E52298D9D@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <4162EB5D-6A40-4C23-A53B-1C1BA7D4CF5F@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <4162EB5D-6A40-4C23-A53B-1C1BA7D4CF5F@viagenie.ca>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.8.23.41223
Cc: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>, "sunset4@ietf.org" <sunset4@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sunset4] An IPv4 sunset problem (?)
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sunset4>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 05:43:04 -0000

Hi Marc,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med=20

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Marc Blanchet [mailto:marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca]=20
>Envoy=E9 : mercredi 22 ao=FBt 2012 18:59
>=C0 : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
>Cc : Simon Perreault; sunset4@ietf.org
>Objet : Re: [sunset4] An IPv4 sunset problem (?)
>
>
>Le 2012-08-22 =E0 12:54, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> a =E9crit :
>
>> Hi Simon,
>>=20
>> This issue has been already documented in depth in=20
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-nat64-learn-analysis-03.
>>=20
>
>maybe, but for a document (gap analysis) that should state=20
>potential issues when turning IPv4 off in a network,

Med: If IPv4 is turned off, then no host will be dual-stack serviced...so t=
here is no issue at all with NAT64/DNS64. The issue is when there are a mix=
ture of IPv6-only connectivity and DS connectivity; but that one can be sol=
ved in various was as having distinct dns servers or using one of the solut=
ions listed in the behave draft.=20

 I think=20
>that issue (two sets of stacks in an IPv6-only network with=20
>NAT64)  is relevant to be listed. =20
>
>Maybe it is a short paragraph that points to the others (such=20
>as the one you are referencing to), so we avoid multiple=20
>discussions. I leave it to the editors to review the=20
>referenced texts and write whatever is appropriate.
>
>Marc.
>
>> I'm not sure if there is a value to re-discuss this point in=20
>the gap analysis document.
>>=20
>> Cheers,
>> Med
>>=20
>>=20
>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>> De : sunset4-bounces@ietf.org=20
>>> [mailto:sunset4-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Simon Perreault
>>> Envoy=E9 : mercredi 22 ao=FBt 2012 17:54
>>> =C0 : sunset4@ietf.org
>>> Objet : [sunset4] An IPv4 sunset problem (?)
>>>=20
>>> Sunsetters,
>>>=20
>>> Recently there has been discussion in v6ops about a problem=20
>>> that arises=20
>>> when a network infrastructure featuring NAT64+DNS64 is used by=20
>>> IPv6-only=20
>>> as well as dual-stack hosts. The problem is that you want the=20
>>> IPv6-only=20
>>> hosts to use the DNS64 but not the dual-stack hosts.
>>>=20
>>> This is a well-known problem that has been discussed in=20
>behave and for=20
>>> which there is a solution that involves the hosts=20
>>> (draft-ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic), and another=20
>>> that involves=20
>>> only the network (provision different DNS resolver addresses to=20
>>> IPv6-only and dual-stack hosts). Those solutions may not=20
>apply in many=20
>>> cases: the first solution requires that all hosts be modified,=20
>>> while the=20
>>> second solution requires that one be able to differentiate=20
>IPv6-only=20
>>> from dual-stack hosts.
>>>=20
>>> Question for the WG: should this be discussed in=20
>>> draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis? If so, we would appreciate=20
>additional=20
>>> input. Additional solution ideas would also be appreciated...
>>>=20
>>> Thanks,
>>> Simon
>>> --=20
>>> DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
>>> NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
>>> STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sunset4 mailing list
>>> sunset4@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
>>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> sunset4 mailing list
>> sunset4@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
>
>=

From mcr@sandelman.ca  Fri Aug 24 08:00:19 2012
Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84EF421F871E for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.954
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.954 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3z7eJbcy8I-s for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEBBE21F870A for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (199-7-156-135.eng.wind.ca [199.7.156.135]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B1108654 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:54:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (quigon.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B63FCA0CD for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 21:19:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "sunset4@ietf.org" <sunset4@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5332A6C7@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <5035007C.2070809@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E52298D9D@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <4162EB5D-6A40-4C23-A53B-1C1BA7D4CF5F@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5332A6C7@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Comments: In-reply-to <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> message dated "Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:42:38 +0200."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 21:19:56 -0400
Message-ID: <1960.1345771196@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Subject: Re: [sunset4] An IPv4 sunset problem (?)
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sunset4>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:00:19 -0000

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


>>>>> "mohamed" =3D=3D mohamed boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wri=
tes:
    mohamed> Med: If IPv4 is turned off, then no host will be dual-stack
    mohamed> serviced...so there is no issue at all with
    mohamed> NAT64/DNS64. The issue is when there are a mixture of
    mohamed> IPv6-only connectivity and DS connectivity; but that one
    mohamed> can be solved in various was as having distinct dns servers
    mohamed> or using one of the solutions listed in the behave draft.=20=20

Is a dual-home host (smartphone: wifi+3G) in scope?
wifi could be IPv6 only, 3G could well be (and is for me) NAT44-only.

The wifi infrastructure thinks it is dealing/providing an IPv6 only
network.  The phone however seems to be DS.  The phone might otherwise
enable Teredo or something to get connectivity to V6-only hosts over NAT44.

If the infrastructure could signal NAT64/DNS64, then the phone could know
for sure.=20=20

=2D-=20
Michael Richardson
=2Dat the cottage-

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAABAgAGBQJQNta7AAoJEKD0KQ7Gj3P2U4IH/Amc5qJLYbBRow9W2PuTkwsl
Ky1SRZuszMWiX5o9OR/8djiFT2NcpTkhnxTgIoOcf8o4DjqqJBPpKfbe1HQc02wl
iDAPSAinwCPSZxlHWSFOH1I8jdLOCuWGDfyThkU/cyhTdUTsx6kRT17WyHaNK/aa
jajx7BHP0t8PZuLhi6rp18C5bbrDsSY22EnT1J/g2DCahVj1C46V2p/lMa0/hRtN
OlYTx12wz7npLFiCTr1aeYR3Pvdsw3jaDKkMZa/Z1re4FWCYe3wNeQEMALhPlGG9
D6R37iYsrGPfzBvl81fzV0qZysW8Zz/hqB6lFESg9ovJQMs9rBAyOJ8nRoKYOE8=
=Bwjz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--

From simon.perreault@viagenie.ca  Fri Aug 24 08:43:42 2012
Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61FF121F8710 for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.539
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.061,  BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B1IkUtsaxTai for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000:226:55ff:fe57:14db]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C55D721F86C5 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from porto.nomis80.org (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:4df:b093:21c9:f5f6]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B56B45CA4 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:43:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <5037A12C.9030009@viagenie.ca>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:43:40 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sunset4@ietf.org
References: <5035007C.2070809@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E52298D9D@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <4162EB5D-6A40-4C23-A53B-1C1BA7D4CF5F@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5332A6C7@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <1960.1345771196@sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <1960.1345771196@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [sunset4] An IPv4 sunset problem (?)
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sunset4>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:43:42 -0000

Le 2012-08-23 21:19, Michael Richardson a écrit :
> Is a dual-home host (smartphone: wifi+3G) in scope?
> wifi could be IPv6 only, 3G could well be (and is for me) NAT44-only.
>
> The wifi infrastructure thinks it is dealing/providing an IPv6 only
> network.  The phone however seems to be DS.  The phone might otherwise
> enable Teredo or something to get connectivity to V6-only hosts over NAT44.
>
> If the infrastructure could signal NAT64/DNS64, then the phone could know
> for sure.

That's a very good point IMHO.

Thanks!
Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

From mcr@sandelman.ca  Fri Aug 24 12:23:14 2012
Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FA2F21F8610 for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.943
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.943 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id quIpb7HtJeU4 for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 054F621F84E7 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (74-115-197-225.eng.wind.ca [74.115.197.225]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D89198656 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:17:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (quigon.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CCE6CA0C9 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:52:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: sunset4@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <5037A12C.9030009@viagenie.ca>
References: <5035007C.2070809@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E52298D9D@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <4162EB5D-6A40-4C23-A53B-1C1BA7D4CF5F@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5332A6C7@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <1960.1345771196@sandelman.ca> <5037A12C.9030009@viagenie.ca>
Comments: In-reply-to Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> message dated "Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:43:40 -0400."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:52:28 -0400
Message-ID: <28773.1345830748@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Subject: Re: [sunset4] An IPv4 sunset problem (?)
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sunset4>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 19:23:14 -0000

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


>>>>> "Simon" =3D=3D Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> writes:
    >> Is a dual-home host (smartphone: wifi+3G) in scope?
    >> wifi could be IPv6 only, 3G could well be (and is for me) NAT44-only.

    Simon> That's a very good point IMHO.

But, is this in scope for sunset4?

This thread has devolved into "but, we (over there: 6man/behave, I
think), that this was out of scope.=20=20

=2D-=20
Michael Richardson
=2Dat the cottage-

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAABAgAGBQJQN79cAAoJEKD0KQ7Gj3P2tSQIAI7brBSYa9+lWN7wdOJGptWM
OQanxct+pEudd+HJ9Cph6In26a8vLveHM2S2vYKa798KkX2CgK+EL+1MS3yg2e3m
tN6vXzxE1IGoVmL5r5B+TPqU/eSYWYLmZB6XP9D7RD+k6TKfPcvLPK81qzSiRwXH
JOvvYFI7mLpl/Izu0FQs05D+OyMovK653MQ3y5PfkCBFjFJe5ysF8KUg2w3Suzdx
Zu60BpzeSuI7XOzfh1uiuDU34wSukG7189pLd/1oI9amBbaWaJaSKVBeVYRsIa4w
PTqlJujPqaNtwyNXeAmJNbxGuehumBDnDFPAfbkKLP5mPAxXmM9a6FNyCvUcvaY=
=FV+X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--

From simon.perreault@viagenie.ca  Fri Aug 24 13:15:10 2012
Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD46221F8593 for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.235
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.236, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N1Pp61HgAcRX for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000:226:55ff:fe57:14db]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E52421F8574 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.149] (modemcable212.59-179-173.mc.videotron.ca [173.179.59.212]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0470B45CDC for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:15:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <5037E0CB.2090409@viagenie.ca>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:15:07 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sunset4@ietf.org
References: <5035007C.2070809@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E52298D9D@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <4162EB5D-6A40-4C23-A53B-1C1BA7D4CF5F@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5332A6C7@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <1960.1345771196@sandelman.ca> <5037A12C.9030009@viagenie.ca> <28773.1345830748@sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <28773.1345830748@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [sunset4] An IPv4 sunset problem (?)
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sunset4>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 20:15:11 -0000

Le 24/08/2012 1:52 PM, Michael Richardson a écrit :
>      >> Is a dual-home host (smartphone: wifi+3G) in scope?
>      >> wifi could be IPv6 only, 3G could well be (and is for me) NAT44-only.
>
>      Simon> That's a very good point IMHO.
>
> But, is this in scope for sunset4?
>
> This thread has devolved into "but, we (over there: 6man/behave, I
> think), that this was out of scope.

Well, IMHO NAT64 is an IPv4 sunsetting technology and sunset4 is 
concerned with IPv4 sunsetting, and behave is shutting down, and it's 
out of scope for v6ops, so.....

But I'm no chair/AD.

Simon

From denghui02@gmail.com  Fri Aug 24 19:31:38 2012
Return-Path: <denghui02@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C118F21F85A1 for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 19:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.355
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.355 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZCjlM9gZ2e2p for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 19:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com (mail-qc0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41AD521F8539 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 19:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qcac10 with SMTP id c10so1815961qca.31 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 19:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=5tTEmA+5J64d9SXRmmJ9Xir/nljptyJuNJdgWWnLEe8=; b=sz9Tb3iXM3fwLG7lK7vauPuwLq1k39wjhXBcFQeqm8oVb0DuE7ViRBmq4Lhg70XwJq rDLSf2egkpxhZe6urt5P2gLHodH3+Psj/F7i0GxypURX0iazTOWsrKUfJMFJ/F/Jhkev 6reOS8fQIjn61BbrscN9BWxqok5YJeC8TPBDR7kYZQxu/SFyOlUmcet57BPAM2osv7HF eqfqi7Qx7oFkJiW6euCiMi5MBrG5m0dMB34Mc7NZQ9fZeQHdGvsvj3gJPbAfNl2xe8x2 9j7CQYuD5RQ7XNdI80WBBybouxe7ku2z7Vax9iRkLPdYo/Crzi0tsSkYQ0eGKsw/qz/U Cgsw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.136.142 with SMTP id r14mr3513179qct.70.1345861897538; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 19:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.49.3 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 19:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5037E0CB.2090409@viagenie.ca>
References: <5035007C.2070809@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E52298D9D@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <4162EB5D-6A40-4C23-A53B-1C1BA7D4CF5F@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5332A6C7@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <1960.1345771196@sandelman.ca> <5037A12C.9030009@viagenie.ca> <28773.1345830748@sandelman.ca> <5037E0CB.2090409@viagenie.ca>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 10:31:37 +0800
Message-ID: <CANF0JMCdsnaHHBxQFLjevQSBnWefLpWexQdVfK48iQ9Cw9Hg8A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Hui Deng <denghui02@gmail.com>
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00248c71180d51cb7b04c80de488
Cc: sunset4@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sunset4] An IPv4 sunset problem (?)
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sunset4>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 02:31:38 -0000

--00248c71180d51cb7b04c80de488
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-korhonen-mif-ra-offload-04



2012/8/25 Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>

> Le 24/08/2012 1:52 PM, Michael Richardson a =E9crit :
>
>       >> Is a dual-home host (smartphone: wifi+3G) in scope?
>>      >> wifi could be IPv6 only, 3G could well be (and is for me)
>> NAT44-only.
>>
>>      Simon> That's a very good point IMHO.
>>
>> But, is this in scope for sunset4?
>>
>> This thread has devolved into "but, we (over there: 6man/behave, I
>> think), that this was out of scope.
>>
>
> Well, IMHO NAT64 is an IPv4 sunsetting technology and sunset4 is concerne=
d
> with IPv4 sunsetting, and behave is shutting down, and it's out of scope
> for v6ops, so.....
>
> But I'm no chair/AD.
>
> Simon
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> sunset4 mailing list
> sunset4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/sunset4<https://www.ietf.org/mail=
man/listinfo/sunset4>
>

--00248c71180d51cb7b04c80de488
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div><a href=3D"http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-korhonen-mif-ra-offload-04=
">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-korhonen-mif-ra-offload-04</a></div><div=
><br><br>=A0</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2012/8/25 Simon Perreault <spa=
n dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:simon.perreault@viagenie.ca" target=3D"=
_blank">simon.perreault@viagenie.ca</a>&gt;</span><br>
<blockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-=
color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class=
=3D"gmail_quote">Le 24/08/2012 1:52 PM, Michael Richardson a =E9crit :<div =
class=3D"im">
<br>
<blockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-=
color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class=
=3D"gmail_quote">
=A0 =A0 =A0&gt;&gt; Is a dual-home host (smartphone: wifi+3G) in scope?<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0&gt;&gt; wifi could be IPv6 only, 3G could well be (and is for m=
e) NAT44-only.<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0Simon&gt; That&#39;s a very good point IMHO.<br>
<br>
But, is this in scope for sunset4?<br>
<br>
This thread has devolved into &quot;but, we (over there: 6man/behave, I<br>
think), that this was out of scope.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Well, IMHO NAT64 is an IPv4 sunsetting technology and sunset4 is concerned =
with IPv4 sunsetting, and behave is shutting down, and it&#39;s out of scop=
e for v6ops, so.....<br>
<br>
But I&#39;m no chair/AD.<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
<br>
Simon</font></span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
sunset4 mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:sunset4@ietf.org" target=3D"_blank">sunset4@ietf.org</a><=
br>
<a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4" target=3D"_blank"=
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/<u></u>listinfo/sunset4</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>

--00248c71180d51cb7b04c80de488--

From denghui02@gmail.com  Tue Aug 28 18:49:36 2012
Return-Path: <denghui02@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADFA621F852B for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.403
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.403 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.195, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oG6r-dq12mNy for <sunset4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com (mail-qc0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A09B621F8526 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qcac10 with SMTP id c10so30400qca.31 for <sunset4@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=rXrOs39PXz3c3v5VOBKWOIcZjIGhMjPjQneLmxlVaEU=; b=d9EQIH0XHoxYQQjk4whV9epD5DB17oTWGpO06hRBqCgMWM0L+KPa/JdtpsSO7e/pjT HTdX/rTGTV/gbELrxICcpT0xQAqZR+SHZEmxQBV9AzCLkviW64c+8wlDqlAC5Dcrbq9r wsBzhZ1J9J3QnKNxUNO5RsTtUZUpNdysPFhDyIzdH9e4uMTZAM8wCwMmVW3tJpEJNi5S rSi9xUlnE5lts6EfcwenVqnriSs4+u8RojO/Q8m5pOmC7GJzUx5uNblxjtccJklu6lXJ az0O+2/0l0T88+Q1T8QMld8N+Zr5gYicPODG5ZbjbBCP1NU0c444F0ZvLfaoI85yRSvD AaEw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.69.87 with SMTP id y23mr9483982qci.114.1346204975043; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.49.3 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <29674.1346013846@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
References: <5035007C.2070809@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E52298D9D@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <4162EB5D-6A40-4C23-A53B-1C1BA7D4CF5F@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5332A6C7@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <1960.1345771196@sandelman.ca> <5037A12C.9030009@viagenie.ca> <28773.1345830748@sandelman.ca> <5037E0CB.2090409@viagenie.ca> <CANF0JMCdsnaHHBxQFLjevQSBnWefLpWexQdVfK48iQ9Cw9Hg8A@mail.gmail.com> <29674.1346013846@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:49:34 +0800
Message-ID: <CANF0JMBeTg+-mqVH=4ZEmy-Rh635LT6MR9T9O5MKB_uhUSGfJg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Hui Deng <denghui02@gmail.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00032557b58e55160e04c85dc506
Cc: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>, sunset4@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sunset4] An IPv4 sunset problem (?)
X-BeenThere: sunset4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: sunset4 working group discussion list <sunset4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sunset4>
List-Post: <mailto:sunset4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4>, <mailto:sunset4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:49:36 -0000

--00032557b58e55160e04c85dc506
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

excuse me for being late, vocation this week,

I guess this target both MIF and Sunset scenario. if it prefer IPv4
connection whatever it is wifi or 3G.
for NAT64, today only 3G deployment is XLAT464,  it can support Ipv4
connection as well,
whether to use nat44 in ipv4 or XLAT464 in 3g network might related to MIF
happy eyeball.

-Hui


2012/8/27 Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>

>
> >>>>> "Hui" == Hui Deng <denghui02@gmail.com> writes:
>     Hui> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-korhonen-mif-ra-offload-04
>
> okay, so this motivated so that the IPv6 3G can say to use the NAT44 on
> the wifi.   It seems that it can also let the IPv6 enabled wifi say,
> "please prefer this connection for IPv4".
>
> I'm not clear that it can say "please perfer this connection via
> DNS64/NAT64".
>
> Can you offer some opinion about whether or not it should be in scope
> for sunset4, or is this really a mif issue?
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>
>
>

--00032557b58e55160e04c85dc506
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div>excuse me for being late, vocation this week,</div><div>=A0</div><div>=
I guess this target both MIF and Sunset scenario. if it prefer IPv4 connect=
ion whatever it is wifi or 3G.<br></div><div>for NAT64, today only 3G deplo=
yment is XLAT464,=A0=A0it can support Ipv4 connection as well, </div>
<div>whether to use nat44 in ipv4 or XLAT464 in 3g network might related to=
 MIF happy eyeball.</div><div>=A0</div><div>-Hui</div><div><br>=A0</div><di=
v class=3D"gmail_quote">2012/8/27 Michael Richardson <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;=
<a href=3D"mailto:mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca" target=3D"_blank">mcr+ietf@sandelm=
an.ca</a>&gt;</span><br>
<blockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-=
color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class=
=3D"gmail_quote"><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &quot;Hui&quot; =3D=3D Hui Deng &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:=
denghui02@gmail.com">denghui02@gmail.com</a>&gt; writes:<br>
=A0 =A0 Hui&gt; <a href=3D"http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-korhonen-mif-ra=
-offload-04" target=3D"_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-korhonen-mi=
f-ra-offload-04</a><br>
<br>
okay, so this motivated so that the IPv6 3G can say to use the NAT44 on<br>
the wifi. =A0 It seems that it can also let the IPv6 enabled wifi say,<br>
&quot;please prefer this connection for IPv4&quot;.<br>
<br>
I&#39;m not clear that it can say &quot;please perfer this connection via<b=
r>
DNS64/NAT64&quot;.<br>
<br>
Can you offer some opinion about whether or not it should be in scope<br>
for sunset4, or is this really a mif issue?<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
Michael Richardson &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mcr%2BIETF@sandelman.ca">mcr+IETF@=
sandelman.ca</a>&gt;, Sandelman Software Works<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br>

--00032557b58e55160e04c85dc506--