Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00 - who from the v6 sidecan talk to who in the v4 side?

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

Regards
   Brian Carpenter
   University of Auckland




On 2008-07-26 03:15, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In the current version of the draft we have that:
> 
> R2: Basic communication support
> R2.1: Translation mechanism must support v6-initiated short-lived local
> handle (as defined in Section 3.1.
> 
> There is strong consensus on this
> 
> Question: v6-initiated connections from which v6 address to which v4
> address?
> I have always assumed all v6 address and all v4 addresses, but after
> some discussion, it is not obvious…
> 
> Do people think that this goal is achieved is a subset of v6 source
> address can reach a subset of v4 addresses? Or do people think that this
> goal is achieved if a subset of v6 addresses can reach all the v4
> addresses?

In my view, neither is OK for a general solution. There may be communities
that can manage with a subset, but I don't see how it can solve the
residual general problem of coexistence (i.e. the part that isn't solved
by the dual stack model).

   Brian