[136743] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Fri Feb 4 16:36:58 2011
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <20110204213259.E2FE29B1DED@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 16:36:20 -0500
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 4, 2011, at 4:32 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>=20
> In message <201102041140.42719.lowen@pari.edu>, Lamar Owen writes:
>> On Friday, February 04, 2011 09:05:09 am Derek J. Balling wrote:
>>> I think they'll eventually notice a difference. How will an =
IPv4-only inter
>> nal host know what to do with an IPv6 AAAA record it gets from a DNS =
lookup?
>>=20
>> If the CPE is doing DNS proxy (most do) then it can map the AAAA =
record to an
>> A record it passes to the internal client, with an internal address =
for the=20
>> record chosen from RFC1918 space, and perform IPv4-IPv6 1:1 NAT from =
the assi
>> gned RFC1918 address to the external IPv6 address from the AAAA =
record (since
>> you have at least a /64 at your CPE, you can even use the RFC1918 =
address in
>> the lower 32 bits.... :-P). =20
>>=20
>> This may already be a standard, or a draft, or implemented somewhere; =
I don't
>> know. But that is how I would do it, just thinking off the top of my =
head.
>>=20
>=20
> DS-lite delivers a IPv4 softwire over a IPv6 upstream. It also
> introduces less problems than NAT64 as it works with DNSSEC and
> with IPv4 literal. Along with DS-lite there is a UPNP replacement
> designed to work with distributed NATs (DS-Lite (AFTR+B4) and NAT444
> (LSN + CPE NAT)) so that holes can be punched threw multiple devices
> if needed.
I've yet to see a version of ALG that isn't buggy (eg: Cisco SIP-ALG, =
2Wire/ATT uverse sip-alg is seriously broken, same for either dlink or =
netgear... we have to turn it off otherwise it does bad things).
I'm sure that LSN activity is going to work "great" for the carriers.
*shakes head*
- jared=
