Subject: Re: presentation notes

From: "" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:32:35 PST

>From: Richard Draves <[email-masked]>
>To: "'IPng List'" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: presentation notes
>Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 12:23:10 -0800
...
>There were some comments about adding an entry for translatable addresses,
>lower precedence than 6to4 and v4-compatible address. That sounds fine to
>me.
>

Actualy it might be more complex than that. Let me explain.

Translatable addresses as defined in Erik's SIIT are:
0:0:0:0:FFFF:0:IPv4/96

In NAT-PT, as translatable addresses, we originally used any PREFIX::/96 
(that NAT-PT inserts infront of IPv4 addresses on DNS replies). This is 
needed so you can have multiple NAT-PTs in a network. The only issue with 
the above PREFIX::/96 is that the client behind the NAT-PT CAN NOT 
distinguish it from a global IPv6 address. One alternative was to use Erik's 
translatable but this does not give us the ability to have multiple NAT-PTs. 
A middle ground is the following:
0:0:x:y:FFFF:0:IPv4/96

The 0:0::/8 sais that the address is embedded IPv4; the x:y allows for 
structure and multiple NAT-PTs and the rest is Erik's translatable. => the 
network can have multiple NAT-PT and the client *knows* when that if 
communicates with this address will go throuhg translation

According to the table Steve presented though this would have same 
precedence with global addresses?
I suggested that 0:0::/8 should go at the bottom (as opposed to just the 
0:0:0:0:FFFF:0::/96) but this would then include the IPv4 compatible 
addresses (0::0:IPv4/96)

Is there any other way to represent this?

George

P.S: Please note that in practice implementors and net admins will use 
whatever PREFIX::/96 they want. I am just trying to make a *recommendation* 
that helps transition and does not impact native connectivity!

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Richard Draves <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:19:53 -0800

Two comments -

1. You note that implementors and administrators might use any prefix for
translation. If the default policy table has an entry for translatable
addresses, it needs to be some standard prefix that is widely used enough to
be worth the bother.

2. The policy table is a longest-matching-prefix lookup table, so there's no
problem with having (for example) one policy for ::/8 and another policy for
::/96 and another policy for ::/0.

Thanks,
Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 2:33 PM
> To: Richard Draves; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: presentation notes
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:01:37 -0000

> From:	Richard Draves [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Monday, November 15, 1999 11:20 PM
> To:	[email-masked]'
> Cc:	[email-masked]
> Subject:	RE: presentation notes
> 
> Two comments -
> 
	I agree, we need the smallest default table that will work for 99.9%
of cases.

> ::/96 and another policy for ::/0.
	I see, so what I suggest is the default to be:
	::/96 (IPv4 compatible) have preference over
	::/8 (other IPv4 embedded like mapped, Erik's translated and my
NATed)

	Does that make sense?

	George