[99645] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alain Durand)
Mon Oct 1 09:57:52 2007
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 09:25:26 -0400
From: Alain Durand <alain_durand@cable.comcast.com>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
CC: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>,
<nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CCDD3A8B-9196-441E-B254-E31D799566A4@muada.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> 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_3274075526_243114
Content-type: text/plain;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
On 9/30/07 2:59 PM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com> wrote:
>=20
> So what I say is:
>=20
> <v4 world> - <NAT> - <tunnel over v6> - <process NATed v4>
>=20
> And what you say is:
>=20
> <v4 world> - <NAT> - <translate to v6> - <forward over native v6> -
> <translate to v4> - <process NATed v4>
>=20
> Your model has more steps, and it's also more complicated. If you
> know you're going to go back to v4 anyway, it makes more sense to
> keep the IPv4 header around and tunnel rather than translate. This
> doesn't affect the IPv6 processing, because all IPv6 header fields
> can be the same regardless.
>=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D> Iljitsch,
I=B9m afraid you characterization is oversimplified. Would you like to have a=
n
off-line conversation
(phone or maybe at the next NANOG) to go over the details?
- Alain
--B_3274075526_243114
Content-type: text/html;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action=
: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE=3D"Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 9/30/07 2:59 PM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com=
> wrote:<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYL=
E=3D'font-size:12.0px'><BR>
So what I say is:<BR>
<BR>
<v4 world> - <NAT> - <tunnel over v6> - <process NATed=
v4><BR>
<BR>
And what you say is:<BR>
<BR>
<v4 world> - <NAT> - <translate to v6> - <forward over=
native v6> - <BR>
<translate to v4> - <process NATed v4><BR>
<BR>
Your model has more steps, and it's also more complicated. If you <BR>
know you're going to go back to v4 anyway, it makes more sense to <BR>
keep the IPv4 header around and tunnel rather than translate. This <BR>
doesn't affect the IPv6 processing, because all IPv6 header fields <BR>
can be the same regardless.<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STY=
LE=3D'font-size:12.0px'><BR>
<BR>
=3D=3D=3D=3D> Iljitsch,<BR>
<BR>
I’m afraid you characterization is oversimplified. Would you like to =
have an off-line conversation<BR>
(phone or maybe at the next NANOG) to go over the details?<BR>
<BR>
- Alain</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--B_3274075526_243114--
