Re: [addr-select-dt] RFC 3484 issues in address selection in the presence of an IPv4 NAT

Fred and Robert,
thank you for shepherding.

Today's session made me feel that changing the existing *default*  
address selection behavior is too difficult, now that that behavior  
may be is utilized somewhere we don't know.

So, we definitely need customization mechanism of address selection  
policy in application-specific, host-specific, and site-specific way.

Best,

On 2009/03/24, at 6:52, Fred Baker wrote:

>
> On Mar 23, 2009, at 2:36 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>
>> Fred,
>>
>> We have a design team in this area.  I suspect they were in the the  
>> v6ops session this morning.  I copied them here.
>
> I'm pretty sure they were. I'm formally closing the loop here, which  
> I said I would do this morning.
>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>> On Mar 23, 2009, at 2:02 PM, ext Fred Baker wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to bring
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-denis-v6ops-nat-addrsel
>>> "Problems with IPv6 source address selection and IPv4 NATs", Remi
>>> Denis-Courmont, 18-Feb-09, <draft-denis-v6ops-nat-addrsel-00.txt>
>>>
>>> to your attention. We discussed it briefly this morning in v6ops.  
>>> The sense of the room was that it was likely related to your  
>>> effort to improve RFC 3484.
>>>
>>> Along those lines, the discussion at the mike included at least  
>>> two points that RFC 3484 runs afoul of. One is that RFC 3484  
>>> enables no API for administrative control, and administrators are  
>>> likely to want to update it in their environments. The other is  
>>> that the logic that addresses have degrees of likelihood of being  
>>> useful in a fixed order - any fixed order - is problematic.  
>>> Rather, one might have an initial order one uses, but as the  
>>> system gains experience of what address selections are most  
>>> useful, it would be better to have the OS, guided by the  
>>> application, try those addresses that have historically been  
>>> useful first.
>>>
>>> How would you recommend proceeding? Would you prefer to take this  
>>> draft into 6man and including it in the RFC 3484 update?
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> addr-select-dt mailing list
> addr-select-dt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/addr-select-dt