From stevey@amsl.com Wed Dec 3 13:49:06 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-nat66-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-nat66-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F4113A69CC for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:49:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.216 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.110, BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_MOSTLY=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LCUrOLKBro1J for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:49:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.amsl.com (mail.amsl.com [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::14]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 953CB3A6895 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:49:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core2.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FBB424222 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:48:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.amsl.com ([64.170.98.20]) by localhost (core2.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6Q7z8U8vsZja for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:48:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from steveyPC (adsl-69-236-170-29.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [69.236.170.29]) by core2.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 047AE23F78 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:48:38 -0800 (PST) From: "Steve Young" To: Subject: Test Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:48:54 -0800 Message-ID: <003301c95590$efd8e370$cf8aaa50$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0034_01C9554D.E1B5A370" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AclVkO+YcgPAV2RPR4SSuUIacZbrZA== Content-Language: en-us This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C9554D.E1B5A370 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C9554D.E1B5A370 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C9554D.E1B5A370-- From nat66-bounces@ietf.org Wed Dec 3 14:59:56 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nat66-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-nat66-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFC663A6A6F; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:59:56 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 267073A6A6F for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:59:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.811 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.811 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.960, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, HOST_EQ_STATICB=1.372] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LCMUVslhYal2 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:59:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns6.cesidio.net (static.88-198-54-195.clients.your-server.de [88.198.54.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F34B03A6A2D for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:59:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from p3ee3d348.dip.t-dialin.net ([62.227.211.72] helo=[7.19.30.41]) by ns6.cesidio.net with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1L80ku-0007wD-9W for nat66@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:03:40 +0000 Message-ID: <49371032.9030205@peter-dambier.de> Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:03:14 +0100 From: Peter Dambier Organization: Cesidian Root User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081125) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nat66@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 OpenPGP: id=EB5CCB28; url=http://peter-dambier.de/pgp/ Subject: [nat66] draft-mrw-behave-nat66-01.txt X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: peter@peter-dambier.de List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nat66-bounces@ietf.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thank you for the links Margaret. Looking at the slides I think I could implement it immediately on an existing NAT router. I have no idea how much time that would take. I think it is reasonable to expect any open source linux router could do. A refence implementation would answer us a lot of questions. Everybody could use ISATAP and 6to4 with his existing NAT44 out of the box and expect mostly the same speed as his existing NAT44. Tunneling would work with the usual hassle of finding a tunnel broker and configuration and the usual speed penalty. Some of us might even get direct IPv6. It should give IPv6 a needed boost. Oh - we would be multihomed - ISATAP, 6to4 and tunnel broker! I guess for the file sharing people 6to4 by dyndns would be great. After another cup of tea I must admit forget ISATAP. It gives to much trouble for a singe /128 and probably even needs NAT44 to be useable. 6to4 and dyndns needs more thinking but would give IPv6 with reasonable speed to the IPv4 imprisoned. Kind regards Peter - -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter@peter-dambier.de http://www.peter-dambier.de/ http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJNxAvoQA0qetcyygRAphAAJ0et4F5JnHvPQgQK42AGDDrQY6FjQCfb178 K59IRDON8DiiwooorvrYWVw= =HwLr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list nat66@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 From nat66-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 4 00:01:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nat66-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-nat66-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B49A3A68E7; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 00:01:41 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AAC63A68E7 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 00:01:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.849, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X8Op5DlnCflx for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 00:01:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp7-g19.free.fr (smtp7-g19.free.fr [212.27.42.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A79F33A63CB for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 00:01:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp7-g19.free.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp7-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9231DB00C7; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 09:01:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from RD.local (per92-10-88-166-221-144.fbx.proxad.net [88.166.221.144]) by smtp7-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42FE0B0122; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 09:01:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <49378DF1.6080403@free.fr> Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:59:45 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Macintosh/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: peter@peter-dambier.de References: <49371032.9030205@peter-dambier.de> In-Reply-To: <49371032.9030205@peter-dambier.de> Cc: nat66@ietf.org Subject: Re: [nat66] draft-mrw-behave-nat66-01.txt X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Peter Dambier - le (m/j/a) 12/4/08 12:03 AM: > 6to4 and dyndns needs more thinking but would give > IPv6 with reasonable speed to the IPv4 imprisoned. > > Peter, IMO, your comment on 6to4 would advantageously be extended to include 6rd. It looks like you haven't noticed yet that the largest and most rapid IPv6 deployment by an ISP (Google statistics) was done not with 6to4 but with 6rd, the ISP oriented extension of 6to4. You should then be interested in reading http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/slides/v6ops-4.pdf (slides 13, 15, 16 in particular) and http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-despres-v6ops-6rd-ipv6-rapid-deployment-01.txt . Regards, RD _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list nat66@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 From nat66-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 4 00:36:33 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nat66-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-nat66-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477D73A69C9; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 00:36:33 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 703B628C10D for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 00:36:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.934 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.934 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.112, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4+9FeAEY1VOc for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 00:36:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpsmtpo-eml04.kpnxchange.com (cpsmtpo-eml04.KPNXCHANGE.COM [213.75.38.153]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AF603A6905 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 00:36:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpsmtpi-eml05.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.38.135]) by cpsmtpo-eml04.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 4 Dec 2008 09:36:24 +0100 Received: from M90Teco ([86.83.9.22]) by cpsmtpi-eml05.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 4 Dec 2008 09:36:23 +0100 From: "Teco Boot" To: "'Margaret Wasserman'" References: <7625000C-DF32-4CF8-AF01-CA7E6B033317@lilacglade.org> In-Reply-To: <7625000C-DF32-4CF8-AF01-CA7E6B033317@lilacglade.org> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 09:36:21 +0100 Message-ID: <002f01c955eb$62975450$27c5fcf0$@nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AclVgGXeyUzqKlv/TpKQUI384HzBYwAamj9g Content-Language: nl X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Dec 2008 08:36:23.0583 (UTC) FILETIME=[63BDD2F0:01C955EB] Cc: nat66@ietf.org Subject: [nat66] NAT66 Internet Draft X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nat66-bounces@ietf.org / - IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Address Translation (NAT66) -- now somewhat out- / of-date / http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4864.txt?number=4864 Error in URL? I think it is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mrw-behave-nat66-01.txt Or is there another I-D out somewhere? Teco. _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list nat66@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 From nat66-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 4 00:40:28 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nat66-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-nat66-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 486383A69D8; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 00:40:28 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7391E3A69D8 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 00:40:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.554 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AcsQkPszjYMY for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 00:40:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from QMTA06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 991693A69BB for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 00:40:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from OMTA12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.44]) by QMTA06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id mwbm1a0030xGWP856wgNdp; Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:40:22 +0000 Received: from [10.36.0.45] ([76.119.58.152]) by OMTA12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id mwgM1a0073H3vh03YwgMBn; Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:40:22 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=BbmmiMnrAN4bxjKEwygA:9 a=YJ6Z9wup3tFcHl2FuG_4mTaIdqIA:4 a=3SmO1NJXDBsA:10 Message-Id: <083BB4C0-E23F-47AB-A450-6FB23766986A@lilacglade.org> From: Margaret Wasserman To: Teco Boot In-Reply-To: <002f01c955eb$62975450$27c5fcf0$@nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 03:40:21 -0500 References: <7625000C-DF32-4CF8-AF01-CA7E6B033317@lilacglade.org> <002f01c955eb$62975450$27c5fcf0$@nl> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) Cc: nat66@ietf.org Subject: Re: [nat66] NAT66 Internet Draft X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" Sender: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Hi Teco, On Dec 4, 2008, at 3:36 AM, Teco Boot wrote: > / - IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Address Translation (NAT66) -- now somewhat > out- > / of-date > / http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4864.txt?number=4864 > > Error in URL? I think it is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mrw-behave-nat66-01.txt This is correct. Sorry for the original cut-and-paste error, and thanks for the correction. Margaret _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list nat66@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 From nat66-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 5 16:23:59 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nat66-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-nat66-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74E853A68BB; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:23:59 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9069A3A68BB for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:23:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.078 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.078 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.521, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bIkGHYw88o8E for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:23:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 016A33A67DB for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:23:57 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 06 Dec 2008 00:17:12 -0000 Received: from p3EE3D6FB.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [7.19.30.41]) [62.227.214.251] by mail.gmx.net (mp016) with SMTP; 06 Dec 2008 01:17:12 +0100 X-Authenticated: #8956597 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+XX6sKB/yXzyrdNvD4WatJt9s875H6Z7OCVfKbQe gMlvm1UqsIvOvY Message-ID: <4939C556.5030103@peter-dambier.de> Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 01:20:38 +0100 From: Peter Dambier Organization: Cesidian Root User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081125) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Suresh Krishnan References: <7219CE5F-0E02-4E96-BD60-9ED2B128DB95@lilacglade.org> <4939BA88.90506@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <4939BA88.90506@ericsson.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 OpenPGP: id=EB5CCB28; url=http://peter-dambier.de/pgp/ X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.62 Cc: Margaret Wasserman , RJ Atkinson , behave@ietf.org, nat66@ietf.org Subject: Re: [nat66] [BEHAVE] IPv6 NAT: implementer perspectives X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: peter@peter-dambier.de List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nat66-bounces@ietf.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I hope it is ok to include NAT66. Thank you Suresh for pointing us to http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-06 I would very much like to have an extension header for NAT66. That would allow symmetric NAT66 to automatically undo what a NAT66 has done. Outside the NATted area addresses would be orignal and everything would work as expected. Inside the NATted area applications would be warned by the unknown extension header and older applications would break preventing harm. The extension header for NAT66 might include the original address pair and the original checksum. Downside MTU reduced for packets sent through the NATted area. Upside Original header restored. No address or port bits lost. Kind regards Peter Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi Margaret/Ran/All, > > Margaret Wasserman wrote: >> I was on the fence, but your post has convinced me that attempting a >> checksum neutral translation (while a neat trick, in some sense) is >> not all that useful. There are actually two more useful things we >> could spend our time doing: >> >> (1) Agreeing on a format for any future IPv6 extension headers so that >> they can be skipped without knowing what they are. I think this work >> is already underway in 6man, and we should support it. > > This work is kind of stalled in 6man for the lack of support to take it > forward. I would appreciate it if you take a look at > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-06 > > and send in your comments and/or support to the 6man mailing list. > > Cheers > Suresh > _______________________________________________ > Behave mailing list > Behave@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave - -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter@peter-dambier.de http://www.peter-dambier.de/ http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJOcVUoQA0qetcyygRAm8PAJ46vzKmYFKqkqsvo1zH+d7Yqcv0OwCfRGr7 +fLPa8Ru8nmammO+z3bZU7g= =++4h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list nat66@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 From nat66-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 5 17:16:10 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nat66-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-nat66-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A9CA28C0EF; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:16:10 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D85D63A6876 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:16:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.088, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DHfQhylpYRNZ for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:16:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from m1.imap-partners.net (m1.imap-partners.net [64.13.152.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 298803A692E for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:16:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from lust.indecency.org (adsl-242-100-137.tys.bellsouth.net [74.242.100.137]) by m1.imap-partners.net (MOS 3.10.3-GA) with ESMTP id BFC77094 (AUTH admin@network-heretics.com) for nat66@ietf.org; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:15:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4939D24B.7090005@network-heretics.com> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:15:55 -0500 From: Keith Moore User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Macintosh/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: peter@peter-dambier.de References: <7219CE5F-0E02-4E96-BD60-9ED2B128DB95@lilacglade.org> <4939BA88.90506@ericsson.com> <4939C556.5030103@peter-dambier.de> In-Reply-To: <4939C556.5030103@peter-dambier.de> Cc: Margaret Wasserman , RJ Atkinson , behave@ietf.org, nat66@ietf.org Subject: Re: [nat66] [BEHAVE] IPv6 NAT: implementer perspectives X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Peter Dambier wrote: > I would very much like to have an extension header for NAT66. > > That would allow symmetric NAT66 to automatically undo what > a NAT66 has done. If you're going to incur per-packet overhead for the sake of reversing the address translation, why not just tunnel? Keith _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list nat66@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 From nat66-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 5 17:39:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nat66-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-nat66-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0A8B3A69F8; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:39:05 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04B733A69F8 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:39:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.551, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WSnrBf5GYVDT for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:39:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 826EB3A6990 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:39:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 06 Dec 2008 01:38:56 -0000 Received: from p3EE3D6FB.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [7.19.30.41]) [62.227.214.251] by mail.gmx.net (mp062) with SMTP; 06 Dec 2008 02:38:56 +0100 X-Authenticated: #8956597 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18+1IZ3T+c+OBKYX8K5qBK8ugrkntlNR3MmHuy02n 9W+/6ppzn5i/36 Message-ID: <4939D880.8020307@peter-dambier.de> Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 02:42:24 +0100 From: Peter Dambier Organization: Cesidian Root User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081125) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Keith Moore References: <7219CE5F-0E02-4E96-BD60-9ED2B128DB95@lilacglade.org> <4939BA88.90506@ericsson.com> <4939C556.5030103@peter-dambier.de> <4939D24B.7090005@network-heretics.com> In-Reply-To: <4939D24B.7090005@network-heretics.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 OpenPGP: id=EB5CCB28; url=http://peter-dambier.de/pgp/ X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.66 Cc: behave@ietf.org, nat66@ietf.org Subject: Re: [nat66] [BEHAVE] IPv6 NAT: implementer perspectives X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: peter@peter-dambier.de List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nat66-bounces@ietf.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello Keith, the NAT66 I might get from my ISP is almost native IPv6. The tunnel I might get from a tunnel broker means a loss of speed and yet another dependence on somebody else. Of course an IPv6 port of TOR would be a good idea. Maybe I should talk to the TOR people. But I am afraid that is not the tunnel you meant. Connecting customers via aDSL and PPPoE my ISP does already put me through a tunnel and he does already take some bytes away. I dont want a NAT in the first place but I prefer a NAT66 that can be undone by a symmetric NAT66 to an opaque one. Kind regards Peter Keith Moore wrote: > Peter Dambier wrote: > >> I would very much like to have an extension header for NAT66. >> >> That would allow symmetric NAT66 to automatically undo what >> a NAT66 has done. > > > If you're going to incur per-packet overhead for the sake of reversing > the address translation, why not just tunnel? > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > Behave mailing list > Behave@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave - -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter@peter-dambier.de http://www.peter-dambier.de/ http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJOdh+oQA0qetcyygRAuqwAJ4jh5HvZSckODCPyitXF7Qpfg9pcgCfZAep frNw0I4d0ZVzvL1gJh6sIrw= =hW7V -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list nat66@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 From nat66-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 5 17:43:46 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nat66-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-nat66-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 015C33A6990; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:43:46 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EE563A69F8 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:43:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.513 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.513 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.086, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HyV3oClQfBpn for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:43:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from m1.imap-partners.net (m1.imap-partners.net [64.13.152.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 591C33A6990 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:43:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from lust.indecency.org (adsl-242-100-137.tys.bellsouth.net [74.242.100.137]) by m1.imap-partners.net (MOS 3.10.3-GA) with ESMTP id BFC78872 (AUTH admin@network-heretics.com) for nat66@ietf.org; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:43:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4939D8C8.2010203@network-heretics.com> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:43:36 -0500 From: Keith Moore User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Macintosh/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: peter@peter-dambier.de References: <7219CE5F-0E02-4E96-BD60-9ED2B128DB95@lilacglade.org> <4939BA88.90506@ericsson.com> <4939C556.5030103@peter-dambier.de> <4939D24B.7090005@network-heretics.com> <4939D880.8020307@peter-dambier.de> In-Reply-To: <4939D880.8020307@peter-dambier.de> Cc: behave@ietf.org, nat66@ietf.org Subject: Re: [nat66] [BEHAVE] IPv6 NAT: implementer perspectives X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Peter Dambier wrote: > Hello Keith, > > the NAT66 I might get from my ISP is almost native IPv6. > > The tunnel I might get from a tunnel broker means a loss > of speed and yet another dependence on somebody else. why would your ISP impose a NAT on v6 traffic anyway? Keith _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list nat66@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 From nat66-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 5 18:23:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nat66-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-nat66-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFA413A68CD; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:23:51 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 037223A68CD for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:23:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.094 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.505, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IpEb-pYdSNwf for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:23:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 63F113A6876 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:23:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 06 Dec 2008 02:17:04 -0000 Received: from p3EE3D680.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [7.19.30.41]) [62.227.214.128] by mail.gmx.net (mp036) with SMTP; 06 Dec 2008 03:17:04 +0100 X-Authenticated: #8956597 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18F5Fs9/3gFnFRX8C+nw06Lgbf5C0Iecbenz+LRtT rIMwWJnmYeUssu Message-ID: <4939E16F.2020904@peter-dambier.de> Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 03:20:31 +0100 From: Peter Dambier Organization: Cesidian Root User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081125) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Keith Moore References: <7219CE5F-0E02-4E96-BD60-9ED2B128DB95@lilacglade.org> <4939BA88.90506@ericsson.com> <4939C556.5030103@peter-dambier.de> <4939D24B.7090005@network-heretics.com> <4939D880.8020307@peter-dambier.de> <4939D8C8.2010203@network-heretics.com> In-Reply-To: <4939D8C8.2010203@network-heretics.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 OpenPGP: id=EB5CCB28; url=http://peter-dambier.de/pgp/ X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.49 Cc: behave@ietf.org, nat66@ietf.org Subject: Re: [nat66] [BEHAVE] IPv6 NAT: implementer perspectives X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: peter@peter-dambier.de List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nat66-bounces@ietf.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Keith Moore wrote: > Peter Dambier wrote: >> Hello Keith, >> >> the NAT66 I might get from my ISP is almost native IPv6. >> >> The tunnel I might get from a tunnel broker means a loss >> of speed and yet another dependence on somebody else. > > why would your ISP impose a NAT on v6 traffic anyway? Right now they dont sell IPv6 to their customers at all. They (dtag.de) keep telling me infrastructure is not ready yet. Customer equipment is not ready yet and after all there is no NAT66 yet and no firewall. Without NAT66 they cannot route because IPv6 addresse dont aggregate and all those many tunnels keep address tables exploding. On the other hand if we can build a little something that can replace your existing NAT44 router and allows you to 6to4 through your dynamic IPv4 address but keeping your ULA or PI intact, that little something might be called NAT66 and two of them might be called symmetric NAT66. If there is a draft to follow, the linux IPv6 guys and and the BSD guys will implement it. It will finally find its way into those little boxes that do connect you to the IPv4 internet today. Kind regards Peter - -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter@peter-dambier.de http://www.peter-dambier.de/ http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJOeFtoQA0qetcyygRApXrAJ9pOIAWP52kuUoVZhh+UVtmYZE4ggCfYyk7 cfAbWsZKHNPuD4S6WoGoOk0= =Ep69 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list nat66@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 From nat66-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 5 18:48:43 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nat66-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-nat66-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D050A3A682A; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:48:43 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D985F3A682A; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:48:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.319 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.319 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_BEST=2.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id znSenmsHJico; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:48:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.isc.org (mx.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::1c]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D9B43A6811; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:48:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from farside.isc.org (farside.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:bb::5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "farside.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D168114021; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 02:48:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Mark_Andrews@isc.org) Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (drugs.dv.isc.org [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:214:22ff:fed9:fbdc]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "drugs.dv.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (not verified)) by farside.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 655ACE60A5; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 02:48:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org) Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mB62mGtI039467; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:48:17 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from marka@drugs.dv.isc.org) Message-Id: <200812060248.mB62mGtI039467@drugs.dv.isc.org> To: peter@peter-dambier.de From: Mark Andrews In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 06 Dec 2008 03:20:31 BST." <4939E16F.2020904@peter-dambier.de> Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 13:48:16 +1100 Cc: behave@ietf.org, Keith Moore , nat66@ietf.org Subject: Re: [nat66] [BEHAVE] IPv6 NAT: implementer perspectives X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nat66-bounces@ietf.org In message <4939E16F.2020904@peter-dambier.de>, Peter Dambier writes: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Keith Moore wrote: > > Peter Dambier wrote: > >> Hello Keith, > >> > >> the NAT66 I might get from my ISP is almost native IPv6. > >> > >> The tunnel I might get from a tunnel broker means a loss > >> of speed and yet another dependence on somebody else. > > > > why would your ISP impose a NAT on v6 traffic anyway? > > Right now they dont sell IPv6 to their customers at all. > > They (dtag.de) keep telling me infrastructure is not > ready yet. Read: we stuffed around for years despite being told IPv6 is coming and failed to request IPv6 support from our vendors in time to be ready when our customers requested it. > Customer equipment is not ready yet and after > all there is no NAT66 yet and no firewall. Read: we havn't done our home work and we are going to b@3$t you by stating there is no CPE equipement or firewalls. In addition to that we are going to add some more b@#$t about NAT being required. > Without NAT66 they cannot route because IPv6 addresse dont > aggregate and all those many tunnels keep address tables > exploding. Which the other ISP's who supply IPv6 to their customers can just do without requiring NAT66. > On the other hand if we can build a little something that > can replace your existing NAT44 router and allows you to > 6to4 through your dynamic IPv4 address but keeping your > ULA or PI intact, that little something might be called > NAT66 and two of them might be called symmetric NAT66. > > If there is a draft to follow, the linux IPv6 guys and > and the BSD guys will implement it. It will finally > find its way into those little boxes that do connect > you to the IPv4 internet today. > > Kind regards > Peter > > - -- > Peter and Karin Dambier > Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana > Rimbacher Strasse 16 > D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher > +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) > +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) > mail: peter@peter-dambier.de > http://www.peter-dambier.de/ > http://iason.site.voila.fr/ > https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ > ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFJOeFtoQA0qetcyygRApXrAJ9pOIAWP52kuUoVZhh+UVtmYZE4ggCfYyk7 > cfAbWsZKHNPuD4S6WoGoOk0= > =Ep69 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > nat66 mailing list > nat66@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@isc.org _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list nat66@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 From nat66-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 5 18:49:51 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nat66-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-nat66-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549163A69A3; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:49:51 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54C423A682A for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:49:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.52 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sdXkltdEFsVt for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:49:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from m1.imap-partners.net (m1.imap-partners.net [64.13.152.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BA4B3A6876 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:49:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from lust.indecency.org (adsl-242-100-137.tys.bellsouth.net [74.242.100.137]) by m1.imap-partners.net (MOS 3.10.3-GA) with ESMTP id BFC83334 (AUTH admin@network-heretics.com) for nat66@ietf.org; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:49:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4939E844.8040007@network-heretics.com> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:49:40 -0500 From: Keith Moore User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Macintosh/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: peter@peter-dambier.de References: <7219CE5F-0E02-4E96-BD60-9ED2B128DB95@lilacglade.org> <4939BA88.90506@ericsson.com> <4939C556.5030103@peter-dambier.de> <4939D24B.7090005@network-heretics.com> <4939D880.8020307@peter-dambier.de> <4939D8C8.2010203@network-heretics.com> <4939E16F.2020904@peter-dambier.de> In-Reply-To: <4939E16F.2020904@peter-dambier.de> Cc: behave@ietf.org, nat66@ietf.org Subject: Re: [nat66] [BEHAVE] IPv6 NAT: implementer perspectives X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Peter Dambier wrote: >> why would your ISP impose a NAT on v6 traffic anyway? > > Right now they dont sell IPv6 to their customers at all. > > They (dtag.de) keep telling me infrastructure is not > ready yet. Customer equipment is not ready yet and after > all there is no NAT66 yet and no firewall. > > Without NAT66 they cannot route because IPv6 addresse dont > aggregate and all those many tunnels keep address tables > exploding. > > On the other hand if we can build a little something that > can replace your existing NAT44 router and allows you to > 6to4 through your dynamic IPv4 address but keeping your > ULA or PI intact, that little something might be called > NAT66 and two of them might be called symmetric NAT66. > > If there is a draft to follow, the linux IPv6 guys and > and the BSD guys will implement it. It will finally > find its way into those little boxes that do connect > you to the IPv4 internet today. that is the most bizarre thing I've ever read on an IETF list in 18 years. Keith _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list nat66@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 From nat66-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 5 19:21:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nat66-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-nat66-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C1973A68E1; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 19:21:41 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 431943A68E1 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 19:21:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.573 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZcG9zoGcFZKs for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 19:21:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.231]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 915B13A68D6 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 19:21:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id b25so281186rvf.49 for ; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:21:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WOTnKDGVRR1tT/WKu6EZriZCn7Re0SvVjXxc74IzzF0=; b=OrPcZ+4cTRfESnAESijCfnGNc9/8q7FQqNjUIdnJVf1JbwLimvlE93k8g3SLkPxSwV TQvMCyBxt3mrVdJWTO3G0d7z1/70ijNOxWQvyf9JxgeCQBS1e2M6mKKxQNTw6yuTSxL1 eveqw2hwelAq5m68lUsDl5an3GUnDE8X3hT+8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=KacJCFAOpucncqQym9a5oQzWW0NX1DG9iuS/gtq5dNvfxWZvNm60YorVpAHWj7QzqY vCo+RvwtxHAsLXdXx+kLYoqPe3KFmYQgFbbl00cvdnTM87RrgrD8blx613fKkyuUuSjO fvFhhTPtfOifw508THPnfpv8bkfQ7ulEhisws= Received: by 10.141.76.1 with SMTP id d1mr340912rvl.110.1228533692995; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:21:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.1.1.4? (118-93-182-218.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz [118.93.182.218]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b39sm9410919rvf.0.2008.12.05.19.21.30 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:21:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4939EFB7.7070006@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 16:21:27 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: peter@peter-dambier.de References: <7219CE5F-0E02-4E96-BD60-9ED2B128DB95@lilacglade.org> <4939BA88.90506@ericsson.com> <4939C556.5030103@peter-dambier.de> <4939D24B.7090005@network-heretics.com> <4939D880.8020307@peter-dambier.de> <4939D8C8.2010203@network-heretics.com> <4939E16F.2020904@peter-dambier.de> In-Reply-To: <4939E16F.2020904@peter-dambier.de> Cc: Keith Moore , nat66@ietf.org Subject: Re: [nat66] [BEHAVE] IPv6 NAT: implementer perspectives X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nat66-bounces@ietf.org On 2008-12-06 15:20, Peter Dambier wrote: ... > Without NAT66 they cannot route because IPv6 addresse dont > aggregate and all those many tunnels keep address tables > exploding. Please explain this, because it makes no sense. Brian _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list nat66@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 From nat66-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 5 22:36:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nat66-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-nat66-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8008C3A6884; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 22:36:24 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E00D93A6884 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 22:36:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zqCsf5XgClE0 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 22:36:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay2.mail.vrmd.de (relay2.mail.vrmd.de [81.28.224.28]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59E323A6830 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 22:36:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from [87.79.236.249] (helo=[192.168.1.102]) by relay2.mail.vrmd.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1L8qls-0001eD-JF for nat66@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:36:08 +0100 Message-Id: <92C364F4-8A48-419D-B489-486ECE13CF90@let.de> From: Marc Manthey To: nat66@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <4939E844.8040007@network-heretics.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 07:36:07 +0100 References: <7219CE5F-0E02-4E96-BD60-9ED2B128DB95@lilacglade.org> <4939BA88.90506@ericsson.com> <4939C556.5030103@peter-dambier.de> <4939D24B.7090005@network-heretics.com> <4939D880.8020307@peter-dambier.de> <4939D8C8.2010203@network-heretics.com> <4939E16F.2020904@peter-dambier.de> <4939E844.8040007@network-heretics.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) X-Relay-User: marc@let.de Subject: Re: [nat66] [BEHAVE] IPv6 NAT: implementer perspectives X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2119587852==" Sender: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nat66-bounces@ietf.org --===============2119587852== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-102--1017419449 --Apple-Mail-102--1017419449 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > that is the most bizarre thing I've ever read on an IETF list in 18 =20= > years. heard that most telcos are afraid of multicast aswell ;) http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/003233.html so lets implement nat66 ;) greetings marc -- Marc Manthey 50672 K=F6ln - Germany Hildeboldplatz 1a Tel.:0049-221-3558032 Mobil:0049-1577-3329231 mail: marc@let.de PGP/GnuPG: 0x1ac02f3296b12b4d jabber :marc@kgraff.net IRC: #opencu freenode.net twitter: http://twitter.com/macbroadcast web: http://www.let.de Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and =20= certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). Please note that according to the German law on data retention, =20 information on every electronic information exchange with me is =20 retained for a period of six months. --Apple-Mail-102--1017419449 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
that is the most bizarre thing I've ever read on an = IETF list in 18 years.

heard that = most  telcos are afraid of multicast aswell = ;)


so lets = implement nat66 =  ;)

greetings

marc<= /div>


--
Marc Manthey 50672 K=F6ln= - Germany
Hildeboldplatz = 1a
Tel.:0049-221-3558032
Mobil:0049-1577-3329231
mail: marc@let.de
PGP/GnuPG: = 0x1ac02f3296b12b4d 
IRC: #o= pencu  freenode.net

=
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time = you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other = entity (legal or otherwise).

Please note that = according to the German law on data retention, information on every = electronic information exchange with me is retained for a period of = six months.
=

= --Apple-Mail-102--1017419449-- --===============2119587852== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list nat66@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 --===============2119587852==-- From nat66-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 5 23:15:20 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nat66-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-nat66-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D53AF3A6830; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 23:15:20 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82FE73A697F for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 23:15:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.256 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.256 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.958, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_BEST=2.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vJJGVO5hXCTs for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 23:15:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com (mu-out-0910.google.com [209.85.134.188]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 169263A6830 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 23:15:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id w1so292053mue.9 for ; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 23:15:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=c0HURqzd4gV2ptZckIbxWwnayaykIlhq7pd8dPHN3rs=; b=wo9hIT3Xyr201IMC2/2vC68GOJ+S6WZ+qPDHuqK+Jwz+3OQkgOx7Nq8vWwkWvjVEXm 7N5LY1feWgx//30kM+5U8zz1lfpuWW9BKFtpF7Dp7BmgTmfIOsBZdZ6oVNXfPlJeIQKX DJg1V7a3vqvQU+osDV2zzOV4XsPglnfUJZqXk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references; b=VugC/JD/WiEFmxaonhUEhvCBop66jBMh0z7tDrvFi2M/+rIpRt6B33kekijQjc9GmQ jSlM7stYhIAl68B4zk6FPHqYpGsaX+qescXUQtWiqlo74AzDsElIweZKTdqPNsjKCsW3 kxdELGROXCM+Jp7sKfQSgpRr55iGr3mBmCR4o= Received: by 10.103.192.2 with SMTP id u2mr370773mup.95.1228547711533; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 23:15:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.103.5.15 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 23:15:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <18d24aa20812052315o20985656o6cbc3c3d3c67886@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:15:11 +0200 From: "Eric Klein" To: "Mark Andrews" In-Reply-To: <200812060248.mB62mGtI039467@drugs.dv.isc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4939E16F.2020904@peter-dambier.de> <200812060248.mB62mGtI039467@drugs.dv.isc.org> Cc: behave@ietf.org, Keith Moore , nat66@ietf.org Subject: Re: [nat66] [BEHAVE] IPv6 NAT: implementer perspectives X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1271464895==" Sender: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nat66-bounces@ietf.org --===============1271464895== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_36066_31976483.1228547711513" ------=_Part_36066_31976483.1228547711513 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 04:48, Mark Andrews wrote: > > In message <4939E16F.2020904@peter-dambier.de>, Peter Dambier writes: > > > > Right now they dont sell IPv6 to their customers at all. > > > > They (dtag.de) keep telling me infrastructure is not > > ready yet. > > Read: we stuffed around for years despite being told IPv6 > is coming and failed to request IPv6 support from our vendors > in time to be ready when our customers requested it. Actually I think this should read "we didn't bother to upgrade our routers yet, and now can not afford to as we don't know if we will have jobs at the end of the year. > > > Customer equipment is not ready yet and after > > all there is no NAT66 yet and no firewall. > > Read: we havn't done our home work and we are going to b@3$t > you by stating there is no CPE equipement or firewalls. In > addition to that we are going to add some more b@#$t about > NAT being required. > Seems that they never heard of Windows XP and prove the point of this mailing list that people assume that what worked in v4 (i.e. NAT) should be done the same in v6. Also I am not sure about the firewalls, I know that Checkpoint was working on this 2 years ago but don't know what progress they made. > > > Without NAT66 they cannot route because IPv6 addresse dont > > aggregate and all those many tunnels keep address tables > > exploding. > > Which the other ISP's who supply IPv6 to their customers > can just do without requiring NAT66. This was actually the only argument that is close to legitimate, as the routing tables will get larger - maybe if they used some of the user fees to upgrade the hardware (more memory?) they would be able to handle this, as there are many routers out there for the past few years that can handle this problem. ------=_Part_36066_31976483.1228547711513 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline

On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 04:48, Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org> wrote:

In message <4939E16F.2020904@peter-dambier.de>, Peter Dambier writes:
>
> Right now they dont sell IPv6 to their customers at all.
>
> They (dtag.de) keep telling me infrastructure is not
> ready yet.

       Read: we stuffed around for years despite being told IPv6
       is coming and failed to request IPv6 support from our vendors
       in time to be ready when our customers requested it.
 
Actually I think this should read "we didn't bother to upgrade our routers yet, and now can not afford to as we don't know if we will have jobs at the end of the year.
 

> Customer equipment is not ready yet and after
> all there is no NAT66 yet and no firewall.

       Read: we havn't done our home work and we are going to b@3$t
       you by stating there is no CPE equipement or firewalls.  In
       addition to that we are going to add some more b@#$t about
       NAT being required.
 
Seems that they never heard of Windows XP and prove the point of this mailing list that people assume that what worked in v4 (i.e. NAT) should be done the same in v6. Also I am not sure about the firewalls, I know that Checkpoint was working on this 2 years ago but don't know what progress they made.
 

> Without NAT66 they cannot route because IPv6 addresse dont
> aggregate and all those many tunnels keep address tables
> exploding.

       Which the other ISP's who supply IPv6 to their customers
       can just do without requiring NAT66.
 
This was actually the only argument that is close to legitimate, as the routing tables will get larger - maybe if they used some of the user fees to upgrade the hardware (more memory?) they would be able to handle this, as there are many routers out there for the past few years that can handle this problem.
------=_Part_36066_31976483.1228547711513-- --===============1271464895== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list nat66@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 --===============1271464895==-- From nat66-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 5 23:22:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nat66-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-nat66-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3474F3A695E; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 23:22:57 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CB473A697F for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 23:22:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.415 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.415 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.166, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z9lPFpuKbyKL for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 23:22:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay2.mail.vrmd.de (relay2.mail.vrmd.de [81.28.224.28]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99D293A6806 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 23:22:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from [87.79.236.249] (helo=[192.168.1.102]) by relay2.mail.vrmd.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1L8rUy-0005Kz-Qy for nat66@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:22:44 +0100 Message-Id: <1E6AE25A-2C40-4CCE-A67D-1005336DFD04@let.de> From: Marc Manthey To: nat66@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <18d24aa20812052315o20985656o6cbc3c3d3c67886@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 08:22:44 +0100 References: <4939E16F.2020904@peter-dambier.de> <200812060248.mB62mGtI039467@drugs.dv.isc.org> <18d24aa20812052315o20985656o6cbc3c3d3c67886@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) X-Relay-User: marc@let.de Subject: Re: [nat66] [BEHAVE] IPv6 NAT: implementer perspectives X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" Sender: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nat66-bounces@ietf.org just out of curiosity , what happent to "6to4rd" draft that "should = " be released ? http://lettv.de/drupal/?q=3Dnode/59 greetings Marc -- Marc Manthey 50672 K=F6ln - Germany Hildeboldplatz 1a Tel.:0049-221-3558032 Mobil:0049-1577-3329231 mail: marc@let.de PGP/GnuPG: 0x1ac02f3296b12b4d jabber :marc@kgraff.net IRC: #opencu freenode.net twitter: http://twitter.com/macbroadcast web: http://www.let.de Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and = certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). Please note that according to the German law on data retention, = information on every electronic information exchange with me is = retained for a period of six months. _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list nat66@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 From nat66-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 5 23:29:11 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nat66-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-nat66-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DC353A67AE; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 23:29:11 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FCBD3A67AE for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 23:29:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.402 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.154, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZMDCjvePNenO for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 23:29:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay2.mail.vrmd.de (relay2.mail.vrmd.de [81.28.224.28]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4877C3A67AC for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 23:29:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [87.79.236.249] (helo=[192.168.1.102]) by relay2.mail.vrmd.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1L8rb4-0005tr-D0 for nat66@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:29:02 +0100 Message-Id: <5922976E-8500-48AF-B8F3-839EA08568B0@let.de> From: Marc Manthey To: nat66@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <49378DF1.6080403@free.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 08:29:01 +0100 References: <49371032.9030205@peter-dambier.de> <49378DF1.6080403@free.fr> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) X-Relay-User: marc@let.de Subject: Re: [nat66] draft-mrw-behave-nat66-01.txt X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1295714841==" Sender: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nat66-bounces@ietf.org --===============1295714841== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-109--1014245568 --Apple-Mail-109--1014245568 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 04.12.2008 um 08:59 schrieb R=E9mi Despr=E9s: > Peter Dambier - le (m/j/a) 12/4/08 12:03 AM: >> 6to4 and dyndns needs more thinking but would give >> IPv6 with reasonable speed to the IPv4 imprisoned. >> >> > Peter, > > IMO, your comment on 6to4 would advantageously be extended to =20 > include 6rd. > > It looks like you haven't noticed yet that the largest and most =20 > rapid IPv6 deployment by an ISP (Google statistics) was done not =20 > with 6to4 but with 6rd, the ISP oriented extension of 6to4. > > You should then be interested in reading = http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/slides/v6ops-4.pdf=20 > (slides 13, 15, 16 in particular) and = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-despres-v6ops-6rd-ipv6-rapid-dep= loyment-01.txt=20 > . ok found it R=E9mi ;) = http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-despres-v6ops-6rd-ipv6-rapid-deployment-01.= txt is this used from free.fr to bring ipv6 to any customer in france ? Marc -- Marc Manthey 50672 K=F6ln - Germany Hildeboldplatz 1a Tel.:0049-221-3558032 Mobil:0049-1577-3329231 mail: marc@let.de PGP/GnuPG: 0x1ac02f3296b12b4d jabber :marc@kgraff.net IRC: #opencu freenode.net twitter: http://twitter.com/macbroadcast web: http://www.let.de Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and =20= certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). Please note that according to the German law on data retention, =20 information on every electronic information exchange with me is =20 retained for a period of six months. --Apple-Mail-109--1014245568 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Am 04.12.2008 um = 08:59 schrieb R=E9mi Despr=E9s:

Peter = Dambier  -  le (m/j/a) 12/4/08 12:03 AM:
6to4 and dyndns needs more thinking but would = give
IPv6 with reasonable = speed to the IPv4 imprisoned.

=  
Peter,

IMO, your comment on 6to4 would = advantageously be extended to include 6rd.

It looks like you = haven't noticed yet that the largest and most rapid IPv6 deployment by = an ISP (Google statistics) was done not with 6to4 but with 6rd, the ISP = oriented extension of 6to4.

You should then be interested in = reading http://w= ww.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/slides/v6ops-4.pdf (slides 13, 15, 16 = in particular) and http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-despres-= v6ops-6rd-ipv6-rapid-deployment-01.txt = .


ok found it R=E9mi = ;)


is this used from free.fr = to bring ipv6 to any customer in france = ?


Marc
--
Marc Manthey 50672 K=F6ln= - Germany
Hildeboldplatz = 1a
Tel.:0049-221-3558032
Mobil:0049-1577-3329231
mail: marc@let.de
PGP/GnuPG: = 0x1ac02f3296b12b4d 
IRC: #o= pencu  freenode.net

=
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time = you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other = entity (legal or otherwise).

Please note that = according to the German law on data retention, information on every = electronic information exchange with me is retained for a period of = six months.
=
= --Apple-Mail-109--1014245568-- --===============1295714841== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list nat66@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 --===============1295714841==-- From nat66-bounces@ietf.org Sat Dec 6 00:42:14 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nat66-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-nat66-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 200AC3A68F1; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 00:42:14 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE25E3A68F1 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 00:42:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.41 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.41 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fDGwYfpKVs0q for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 00:42:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2-g19.free.fr (smtp2-g19.free.fr [212.27.42.28]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DFAC3A67AC for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 00:42:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2-g19.free.fr (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D8F12B6B3; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:42:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from RD.local (per92-10-88-166-221-144.fbx.proxad.net [88.166.221.144]) by smtp2-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CA6812B6FB; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:42:05 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <493A3A70.4020609@free.fr> Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:40:16 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Macintosh/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marc Manthey References: <4939E16F.2020904@peter-dambier.de> <200812060248.mB62mGtI039467@drugs.dv.isc.org> <18d24aa20812052315o20985656o6cbc3c3d3c67886@mail.gmail.com> <1E6AE25A-2C40-4CCE-A67D-1005336DFD04@let.de> In-Reply-To: <1E6AE25A-2C40-4CCE-A67D-1005336DFD04@let.de> Cc: nat66@ietf.org Subject: Re: [nat66] [BEHAVE] IPv6 NAT: implementer perspectives X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Marc Manthey - le (m/j/a) 12/6/08 8:22 AM: > just out of curiosity , what happent to "6to4rd" draft that "should > " be released ? > > http://lettv.de/drupal/?q=node/59 > See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-despres-6rd It should become an RFC after having been processed by the RFC editor. RD _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list nat66@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 From nat66-bounces@ietf.org Sat Dec 6 00:52:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nat66-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-nat66-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D3493A697F; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 00:52:41 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83C9F3A697F for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 00:52:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.391 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.391 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.143, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5xBhX8LBEIMv for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 00:52:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay2.mail.vrmd.de (relay2.mail.vrmd.de [81.28.224.28]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C8493A6915 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 00:52:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [87.79.236.249] (helo=[192.168.1.102]) by relay2.mail.vrmd.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1L8stn-00045f-3U for nat66@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:52:27 +0100 Message-Id: <538AC46B-6895-4DE3-9F42-A53B5059DEA6@let.de> From: Marc Manthey To: nat66@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <493A3A70.4020609@free.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:52:26 +0100 References: <4939E16F.2020904@peter-dambier.de> <200812060248.mB62mGtI039467@drugs.dv.isc.org> <18d24aa20812052315o20985656o6cbc3c3d3c67886@mail.gmail.com> <1E6AE25A-2C40-4CCE-A67D-1005336DFD04@let.de> <493A3A70.4020609@free.fr> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) X-Relay-User: marc@let.de Subject: Re: [nat66] [BEHAVE] IPv6 NAT: implementer perspectives X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0372975630==" Sender: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nat66-bounces@ietf.org --===============0372975630== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-119--1009240527 --Apple-Mail-119--1009240527 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 06.12.2008 um 09:40 schrieb R=E9mi Despr=E9s: > See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-despres-6rd > It should become an RFC after having been processed by the RFC editor. > RD thanks R=E9mi, are there any recent code snippets librarys that is woth to have a =20 look at from the developer perspective ? like http://miniupnp.free.fr/nat-pmp.html ? any hints and poimters would be greatly apreciated Marc -- Les Enfants Terribles - WWW.LET.DE Marc Manthey 50672 K=F6ln - Germany Hildeboldplatz 1a Tel.:0049-221-3558032 Mobil:0049-1577-3329231 mail: marc@let.de PGP/GnuPG: 0x1ac02f3296b12b4d jabber :marc@kgraff.net IRC: #opencu freenode.net twitter: http://twitter.com/macbroadcast web: http://www.let.de Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and =20= certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). Please note that according to the German law on data retention, =20 information on every electronic information exchange with me is =20 retained for a period of six months. --Apple-Mail-119--1009240527 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Am 06.12.2008 um = 09:40 schrieb R=E9mi Despr=E9s:
See = http://tools.ietf.or= g/html/draft-despres-6rd
It should become an RFC after having = been processed by the RFC = editor.
RD


th= anks R=E9mi,

are there any recent code snippets =  librarys  that is woth to have a look at from = the 
developer perspective = ?


any hints and = poimters would be greatly = apreciated

Marc

--
Les Enfants Terribles - = WWW.LET.DE
Marc Manthey 50672 K=F6ln - = Germany
Hildeboldplatz = 1a
Tel.:0049-221-3558032
Mobil:0049-1577-3329231
mail: marc@let.de
PGP/GnuPG: = 0x1ac02f3296b12b4d 
IRC: #o= pencu  freenode.net

=
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time = you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other = entity (legal or otherwise).

Please note that = according to the German law on data retention, information on every = electronic information exchange with me is retained for a period of = six months.
=

= --Apple-Mail-119--1009240527-- --===============0372975630== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list nat66@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 --===============0372975630==-- From nat66-bounces@ietf.org Sun Dec 7 14:41:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nat66-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-nat66-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D8823A69C5; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 14:41:30 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61AA13A69C5 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 14:41:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.56 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9wGG2RdMX2Fo for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 14:41:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from QMTA02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 068BE3A698B for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 14:41:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from OMTA07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.59]) by QMTA02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id oEFo1a0021GXsucA2NhMMb; Sun, 07 Dec 2008 22:41:21 +0000 Received: from [10.36.0.45] ([76.119.58.152]) by OMTA07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id oNhG1a00F3H3vh08TNhJjY; Sun, 07 Dec 2008 22:41:21 +0000 Message-Id: <5F70261B-F49B-47DA-B1EB-D520C94616AF@lilacglade.org> From: Margaret Wasserman To: peter@peter-dambier.de In-Reply-To: <4939D880.8020307@peter-dambier.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 17:41:15 -0500 References: <7219CE5F-0E02-4E96-BD60-9ED2B128DB95@lilacglade.org> <4939BA88.90506@ericsson.com> <4939C556.5030103@peter-dambier.de> <4939D24B.7090005@network-heretics.com> <4939D880.8020307@peter-dambier.de> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) Cc: behave@ietf.org, Keith Moore , nat66@ietf.org Subject: Re: [nat66] [BEHAVE] IPv6 NAT: implementer perspectives X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" Sender: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Hi Peter, There are serious security issues with the idea of having a host on the receiving end "automatically undo" something that will give the impression that a packet was actually received from a different address. For example, an external source address could be used to pass ingress filtering rules at a border router, and then the address could be switched "back" to an address that appears to have originated locally. This could be used as the basis for an attack. The "TRIP" proposal I circulated had the same problem... There are potential solutions to this problem, such as having the addresses cryptographically generated, but they would have to be spelled out in detail for any proposal along these lines to be secure. Also, how is the receiving host supposed to send traffic back to the source? Which address would it use? I don't think I understand how your proposal would work, unless both the internal and external addresses are globally routed addresses. If that is the case, what benefit is gained from having two sets of addresses? Even if you did globally route both sets of addresses, I am still having some conclusion about what addresses will be seen by the transport layer (and apps) on both ends. Could you perhaps write an Internet-Draft describing your proposal, so that we can discuss it in detail? It should include an explanation of how a client gets the IP address(es) for a remote host, how it initiates a connection, how the remote host responds, what addresses the transport layers will see on both ends, how the local host's transport layer associates the response with the connection it initiated, etc. Also, could you explain which of the benefits of IPv4 NAT are preserved in your solution? Thanks, Margaret On Dec 5, 2008, at 8:42 PM, Peter Dambier wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hello Keith, > > the NAT66 I might get from my ISP is almost native IPv6. > > The tunnel I might get from a tunnel broker means a loss > of speed and yet another dependence on somebody else. > > Of course an IPv6 port of TOR would be a good idea. > Maybe I should talk to the TOR people. > But I am afraid that is not the tunnel you meant. > > Connecting customers via aDSL and PPPoE my ISP does already > put me through a tunnel and he does already take some bytes > away. > > I dont want a NAT in the first place but I prefer a NAT66 > that can be undone by a symmetric NAT66 to an opaque one. > > Kind regards > Peter > > > Keith Moore wrote: >> Peter Dambier wrote: >> >>> I would very much like to have an extension header for NAT66. >>> >>> That would allow symmetric NAT66 to automatically undo what >>> a NAT66 has done. >> >> >> If you're going to incur per-packet overhead for the sake of >> reversing >> the address translation, why not just tunnel? >> >> Keith >> _______________________________________________ >> Behave mailing list >> Behave@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave > > - -- > Peter and Karin Dambier > Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana > Rimbacher Strasse 16 > D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher > +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) > +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) > mail: peter@peter-dambier.de > http://www.peter-dambier.de/ > http://iason.site.voila.fr/ > https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ > ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFJOdh+oQA0qetcyygRAuqwAJ4jh5HvZSckODCPyitXF7Qpfg9pcgCfZAep > frNw0I4d0ZVzvL1gJh6sIrw= > =hW7V > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > nat66 mailing list > nat66@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list nat66@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 From nat66-bounces@ietf.org Sun Dec 7 14:47:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nat66-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-nat66-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 081753A69F3; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 14:47:41 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1C733A69C5 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 14:47:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.563 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.563 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CwGQnemWKjhY for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 14:47:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from QMTA06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DC383A69DC for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 14:47:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from OMTA07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.59]) by QMTA06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id oEjm1a00H1GXsucA6NnagF; Sun, 07 Dec 2008 22:47:34 +0000 Received: from [10.36.0.45] ([76.119.58.152]) by OMTA07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id oNnX1a00G3H3vh08TNnYU4; Sun, 07 Dec 2008 22:47:34 +0000 Message-Id: <3AF1B3E9-2B78-4E7E-94D5-0DA161BF2260@lilacglade.org> From: Margaret Wasserman To: peter@peter-dambier.de In-Reply-To: <4939E16F.2020904@peter-dambier.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 17:47:30 -0500 References: <7219CE5F-0E02-4E96-BD60-9ED2B128DB95@lilacglade.org> <4939BA88.90506@ericsson.com> <4939C556.5030103@peter-dambier.de> <4939D24B.7090005@network-heretics.com> <4939D880.8020307@peter-dambier.de> <4939D8C8.2010203@network-heretics.com> <4939E16F.2020904@peter-dambier.de> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) Cc: behave@ietf.org, Keith Moore , nat66@ietf.org Subject: Re: [nat66] [BEHAVE] IPv6 NAT: implementer perspectives X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" Sender: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nat66-bounces@ietf.org Hi Peter, On Dec 5, 2008, at 9:20 PM, Peter Dambier wrote: > Without NAT66 they cannot route because IPv6 addresse dont > aggregate and all those many tunnels keep address tables > exploding. This doesn't make any sense to me. Why don't IPv6 addresses aggregate? AFAIK, they aggregate the same way that IPv4 addresses do. There are known issues with certain technologies (like using inter-ISP tunnels for site multihoming) and route aggregation, but it is my understanding that those problems exist in both IPv4 and IPv6. Is you ISP describing an IPv6-specific problem? > > On the other hand if we can build a little something that > can replace your existing NAT44 router and allows you to > 6to4 through your dynamic IPv4 address but keeping your > ULA or PI intact, that little something might be called > NAT66 and two of them might be called symmetric NAT66. It is my understanding that the term "symmetric NAT" is already in use to describe something different from what you are describing, so you might consider a different term to avoid ambiguity. It is _exactly_ the point of NAT66 that a customer can use his ULA or PI address internally and his ISP-provided, aggregated address externally. I am not sure, though how the rest of your solution relates. Without a global mapping service of some type, it would not be useful for my ULA or non-globally-routed PI addresses to get to your site, because you couldn't send a packet back to those addresses. > > If there is a draft to follow, the linux IPv6 guys and > and the BSD guys will implement it. It will finally > find its way into those little boxes that do connect > you to the IPv4 internet today. Sadly (or perhaps fortunately :-)), it doesn't always follow that the open source guys implement whatever we write. Hopefully we can have some influence in this case, however. Margaret _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list nat66@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66