Re: [addr-select-dt] slide to 6man presentation

Arifumi Matsumoto <arifumi@nttv6.net> Mon, 26 July 2010 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <arifumi@nttv6.net>
X-Original-To: addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 506683A6AA2 for <addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.393
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.393 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.207, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LHPwud8DC0hV for <addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nttv6.net (mail.nttv6.net [IPv6:2001:fa8::25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2F8C3A6A84 for <addr-select-dt@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.nttv6.net (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6QEx38r075543; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:59:04 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from arifumi@nttv6.net)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Arifumi Matsumoto <arifumi@nttv6.net>
In-Reply-To: <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F5F002AE95D@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:59:02 +0900
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8A9AD0F6-EEA3-418E-85DF-188D4FA879BC@nttv6.net>
References: <482E7BB1-B20F-4F96-B632-5F8B8248A4AA@nttv6.net> <68509AE0-6262-443B-AF25-E14E04119EAE@nttv6.net> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F5F002AE925@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <8B38D19E-ABEA-44EE-9E84-92401963ABA8@nttv6.net> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F5F002AE95D@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com>
To: "teemu.savolainen@nokia.com" <teemu.savolainen@nokia.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (mail.nttv6.net [IPv6:::1]); Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:59:05 +0900 (JST)
Cc: addr-select-dt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [addr-select-dt] slide to 6man presentation
X-BeenThere: addr-select-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPv6 Address Selection Design Team <addr-select-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/addr-select-dt>, <mailto:addr-select-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/addr-select-dt>
List-Post: <mailto:addr-select-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:addr-select-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/addr-select-dt>, <mailto:addr-select-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:58:47 -0000

On 2010/07/26, at 23:48, teemu.savolainen@nokia.com wrote:

> Hi,
> 
>>> The synthesized addresses probably should be prioritized below public
>> IPv4. When comparing synthetic IPv6 to private IPv4, its maybe a matter
>> of taste - assuming ALGs are in place in NAT44 and NAT64 (general
>> preference for IPv6 could win also).
>> 
>> So, you mean
>> global IPv4 should be prioritized than synthesized IPv6 address.
>> but, private IPv4 may not be prioritized than synthesized IPv6
>> address.
> 
> Yes, truly global IPv4 should be higher (hence avoids all NATtting).
> 
>> The RFC3484 revision draft also include a proposal that private IPv4
>> address should be scoped global. So, if we follow it, we should not
>> differentiate the preferences of global and private.
> 
> Hence private IPv4 would be considered higher than synthesized IPv6 using WKP? That is fine, probably NAT44 is more reliable than NAT64 (and may have better ALG support).
> 
>>> The prefix used for synthetized IPV6 addresses (if not using well-
>> known-prefix (WKP)) would need to be dynamically detected..
>> 
>> The host itself does not need to detect it, if the NSP distribute an
>> appropriate policy table for it.
>> Re. WKP, we should have to put it in the default policy table.
> 
> Ok WKP could be low, and NSP could be distributed with policy table. And isn't it so that if some module on a host learns NSP (e.g. DNS resolver or DHCP or RA), it can modify the policy table accordingly (hence locally generated policy).


Of course, I do not preclude such an approach.
But I think, it is better if such a configuration is enforced from the network.
Just like the privacy address preferences should be configurable per network.