[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: multihoming requirement and NAT64

Hiroshi MIYATA escribió:

Marcelo,
I don't have concrete idea, but it may not impossible with current or future 
technologies.
If it is not classified as a MUST, and if it is really required, we can add to 
requirement document, since it is Requirement.
we can include in the should list, meaning that is a nice to have feature and that can be used to compare different solutions? 


On the other hand, I have a concern.
So, let me confirm some fundamental points.
Does the requirement document have clear criteria to add a item to the list? 
that the WG feels it is imporntant


Will the requirement document list all the features of IPv6?


i hope not


I think NAT64 environment is not conformable as native ipv6 environment.
So, there may be some restrictions in somewhere.

I think we should list only the items which have realistic use case.
# This is generic proposal, and not directly related to multihoming issue. 


agree

regards, marcelo



Best Regards,

...miyata

On 2008/03/27, at 5:53, Brian E Carpenter wrote:


On 2008-03-27 07:38, marcelo bagnulo wrote:

Hi,

during the v6ops meeting in Philadelphia, Michael brought up the issue
about multihoming support for NAT64 boxes. As we know, current NAT boxes 
interact poorly with multihioming configurations. the question i guess
whether we should impose some requirements of multihoming support for
new NAT64 boxes.


I don't see how we can, since there is no single, agreed technique
for IPv6 multihoming, and I don't see why we would impose any constraint
to do better than regular v4 NAT on the v4 side.

It might be worth asking solutions to describe how they
interact with various multihoming techniques.

   Brian