[140610] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Yahoo and IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Kaufman)
Sun May 15 00:29:55 2011
Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 21:29:48 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
To: Jima <nanog@jima.tk>
In-Reply-To: <4DCF2F5C.8030104@jima.tk>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: matthew@matthew.at
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 5/14/2011 6:41 PM, Jima wrote:
> On 2011-05-14 13:10, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>> On 5/14/2011 10:19 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>>> Ipv6-only is a highly functional reality when enabled with
>>> nat64/dns64, there are several empirical accounts on the web.
>>
>> For a version of "highly functional" that does not include Skype,
>> BitTorrent, SIP phones, and anything Flash Player app using RTMFP to
>> reach peers, sure.
>
> 1. There are SIP phones that support IPv6, e.g.,
> http://wiki.snom.com/Networking/IPv6
Sure, but NAT64 doesn't let SIP phones on an IPv6-only network talk to
SIP phones on an IP4-only network.
>
> 2. Exactly whose fault is it that RTMFP can't reach peers via IPv6?
> (Granted, I'm not sure RTMFP is the best argument for your point
> anyway, since apparently symmetric NAT monkey-wrenches it, too:
> http://forums.adobe.com/message/3602495 )
RTMFP can reach peers via IPv6... but it can't talk between an IPv6-only
peer that is behind a NAT64 and an IPv4-only peer.
And that would be the fault of NAT64, which for all of the applications
I mentioned (and more) made the seriously wrong assumption that every
IPv4 address is looked up in a DNS server.
Matthew Kaufman
