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

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

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?
>