newman
Uploaded by
4 SLIDES
166 VUES
40LIKES

Exploring the Relationship Between ICE and ANAT in IPv4/IPv6 Transition Techniques

DESCRIPTION

This document discusses the interplay between Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) and Address Family Translation (ANAT) as techniques for transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6. Three main options are analyzed: ICE deprecates ANAT, ANAT can be used with ICE, and SDPCap can deprecate ANAT while incorporating ICE. The discussion highlights the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, including dynamic IPv4/IPv6 selection, path characteristics, and backward compatibility considerations. This guide provides insights for networking professionals on choosing the right transition strategy.

1 / 4

Télécharger la présentation

Exploring the Relationship Between ICE and ANAT in IPv4/IPv6 Transition Techniques

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ICE vs. ANAT Jonathan Rosenberg Cisco

  2. Question: Relationship of ICE and ANAT • Option 1 (ICE): ICE deprecates ANAT, used as the v4/v6 transition technique • Option 2 (ANAT/+ICE): ANAT is the v4/v6 transition technique, can add ICE ontop of it • Option 3 (SDPCap/+ICE): SDPCap deprecates ANAT, can add ICE ontop of it

  3. ICE (+) V4/v6 selection dynamic – deals with v6 connectivity breaks – good for transition (+) wouldn’t need to add something for FW/NAT (+) allows path characteristic based v4/v6 selection (+) Can use RFC 3484 with it (-) complex (-) will need ICE even if there is no NAT/FW anymore (+) will be on endpoints anyway ANAT/+ICE (+) ANAT simpler than ICE if you only need static v4/v6 selection (+) already specified (-) Must always use ANAT even when ICE is used too for backwards compatibility - ANAT adds no value there (-) Doesn’t work with RFC 3484 (-) static selection doesn’t allow fallback in case of path problems (-) no path based selection Pros/Cons

  4. Hums • Option I: • V4/v6 sipping document uses ICE as the transition technique • ICE deprecates ANAT • Option II: • V4/V6 document uses ANAT as the transition technique (as it does now) • ICE describes usage with ANAT

More Related