[BEHAVE] adoption of learn analysis and DNS-based NAT64 prefix discovery
"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Fri, 06 May 2011 01:10 UTC
Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 036DBE067C for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 May 2011 18:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.381
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.381 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.218, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 q+MWyDY+TWQC for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 May 2011 18:10:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0065E0663 for <behave@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 May 2011 18:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; l=2224; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1304644201; x=1305853801; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=XjSASndMGbtmrfBAtTDk4OB6ndYgVFjLl8f26b6ALWs=; b=YLPcj/6WnWHjXL9i2pTH5M4PRM5msZ8MZUsiEWSMqkXo1pI5UeeeN3qt 9gePhI8EuMPttvQHFR+m5UKPDIjrwHYsb3YtVbTSVSzEKji1OxHy/x4Nq BXN9QdOu2j488aF/w+/KV1AqnCgp1Ek1oUxICuvNJwX6CAw0CxqRYgpxs A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AncIAFRJw02rRDoH/2dsb2JhbACYWYEkjEJ3p0WeH4YHBIY4mAE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,323,1301875200"; d="scan'208";a="309538608"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 May 2011 01:10:01 +0000
Received: from dwingWS ([10.32.240.194]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p461A1wA001249; Fri, 6 May 2011 01:10:01 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: behave@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 18:10:01 -0700
Message-ID: <035a01cc0b8a$5311ce50$f9356af0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcwLilLIKIq2VwJWRF2byj3d5YbRHQ==
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: jouni.nospam@gmail.com, behave-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [BEHAVE] adoption of learn analysis and DNS-based NAT64 prefix discovery
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 01:10:05 -0000
At IETF80, we appeared to have reach regarding BEHAVE's milestone "Apr 2011 - Submit to IESG: avoiding NAT64 with dual-stack host for local networks (std)". Excerpt from the minutes is below. Under this milestone, it seems valuable to publish two documents: one which analyzes the various approaches, and another that details the specific recommended approach. To that end, please provide feedback to behave@ietf.org on adopting the following two documents as working group documents: 1. draft-korhonen-behave-nat64-learn-analysis, to be informational http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-korhonen-behave-nat64-learn-analysis-02 2. draft-savolainen-heuristic-nat64-discovery, likely to be standards track or possibly informational http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-savolainen-heuristic-nat64-discovery-01 Thanks, -d ----- http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/minutes/behave.txt ... Avoiding NAT64 with dual-stack host for local networks (Jouni Korhonen) draft-korhonen-edns0-synthesis-flag draft-savolainen-heuristic-nat64-discovery draft-korhonen-behave-nat64-learn-analysis milestone date: April 2011 Dan Wing: Should we use DNS well-known-name (hack) or the ENDS0 option (more elegant) Andrew Sullivan: Are there implementations of NAT64 that don't currently implement the ENDS0 option? Mark Andrews: BIND does not currently have the ENDS0 option but could easily add it Andrew Sullivan: Needs to be done quickly Matthew Kaufman: What about client resolver APIs that don't support getting to the EDNS0 option? Stuart Cheshire: What software needs to learn the prefix? Client DNS resolver, or other application software? Dave Thaler: Other application software. Stuart Cheshire: Then the resolver API limitation might be a problem. Andrew Sullivan: Standardizing a DNS well-known-name will be an uphill struggle Andrew Sullivan: We should pick one and do it, not both. Dave Thaler: If DNS well-known-name, we need to decide if it's a single global well-known-name, or per-operator, or per vendor? Matthew Kaufman: This will happen. Better to synthesize locally than to store in the DNS far away. ...