Problems with removing NAT from a network

Fri Jan 7 01:48:12 UTC 2011

Doesn't all of this become moot if Skype just develops a dual-stack capable client
and servers?

Owen

On Jan 6, 2011, at 1:32 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> On 1/6/2011 10:07 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>> 
>> Skype is not defined in an IETF RFC, so saying you need an RFC to move
>> forward is bit confusing.
> I don't see a disconnect at all. Skype also uses TCP and UDP, which are both subjects of RFCs.
> 
> That said, it doesn't need to be an RFC... just *a reliable way* of discovering the appropriate NAT64 prefix.
>>  There are several methods that just work
>> today,
> 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.
> 
> 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.
>> 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.
> 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.
>> 
>>> 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'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.
> 
> I'm sure there's more.
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 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.
> 
>> 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.
> 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.
> 
>> I also assure you, many mobile operators are pursuing this NAT64 path
>> for the same reason I am.
> Randy Bush would encourage his competitors to do just as you've done, I'm sure.
> 
> Matthew Kaufman
> 