nanog mailing list archives
Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew () matthew at>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:32:23 -0800
On 1/6/2011 10:07 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
I don't see a disconnect at all. Skype also uses TCP and UDP, which are both subjects of RFCs.Skype is not defined in an IETF RFC, so saying you need an RFC to move forward is bit confusing.
That said, it doesn't need to be an RFC... just *a reliable way* of discovering the appropriate NAT64 prefix.
Of the methods proposed in the survey draft, only one - the one that doesn't require the DNS64 spec or operator to make any changes (making an AAAA lookup for something you know only has an A record) - works but *only if* the mapping scheme is such that it is possible to successfully derive a functional prefix and the scheme from the results of that query.There are several methods that just work today,
So in other words, *if* the query results in an AAAA where, by inspection, you can guess where you'd need to stuff the IPv4 address bits *and* the resulting address causes the "right" NAT64 (if there's >1) to be used, then you're set.
No question. And for all you know we might be working on other ways around this problem, but none of them as elegant as a defined specification for how to discover the presence of a NAT64 and the mapping.I am all for standards, but a closed platforms generally find ways to progress without or in spite of standards. Skype is a closed platform.
I'll start with "peer to peer connectivity using RTMFP in Flash Player" and "BitTorrent". Both Flash Player and BitTorrent are fairly popular on desktop platforms.There's lots of other apps that don't work. Skype is just the squeaky wheel because it is so popular.Please make a list and let us know. Otherwise, this is just hand waving like the IPv4 literals sites.
I'm sure there's more.
That's not the problem... the problem is reaching the existing base of IPv4 clients from those IPv6-only clients without making Skype relay all the traffic via servers somewhere, as I'm sure you know.My advice to Skype is to come up with a solution to work for IPv6-only clients. That is my advice to all apps and all content. IPv6-only clients are an obvious reality in an IPv4 exhausted world.
I've been on this list since approximately the time it was formed, so I'm not coming here to ask for something. Just pointing out what will break.You cannot seriously come to a network operators support mailing list and say that the network guys have to keep investing in network tweaks while you wait for a standards body to solve a problem for your closed non-standard applications.
Randy Bush would encourage his competitors to do just as you've done, I'm sure.I also assure you, many mobile operators are pursuing this NAT64 path for the same reason I am.
Matthew Kaufman
Current thread:
- Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network, (continued)
- Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network Cameron Byrne (Jan 05)
- Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network Mark Andrews (Jan 05)
- Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network Cameron Byrne (Jan 05)
- Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network Matthew Kaufman (Jan 05)
- Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network Cameron Byrne (Jan 05)
- Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network Mark Andrews (Jan 05)
- Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network Cameron Byrne (Jan 05)
- Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network Mark Andrews (Jan 06)
- Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network Cameron Byrne (Jan 05)
- Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network Matthew Kaufman (Jan 06)
- Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network Cameron Byrne (Jan 06)
- Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network Matthew Kaufman (Jan 06)
- Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network Owen DeLong (Jan 06)
- Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network Steven Bellovin (Jan 06)
- Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network Joel Jaeggli (Jan 06)
- Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network Matthew Kaufman (Jan 06)
- Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network Leen Besselink (Jan 08)
- Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network Matthew Kaufman (Jan 08)
- Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network Leen Besselink (Jan 09)
- Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network Owen DeLong (Jan 09)
- Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network Owen DeLong (Jan 09)
- Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network Matthew Kaufman (Jan 10)