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 >
