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

<teemu.savolainen@nokia.com> Mon, 26 July 2010 14:48 UTC

Return-Path: <teemu.savolainen@nokia.com>
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 79D993A68A0 for <addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:48:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 TDuzt-fpFGhc for <addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-mx09.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.105.134]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 135B33A6922 for <addr-select-dt@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh105.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.31]) by mgw-mx09.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id o6QEmau9017192; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:48:57 -0500
Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.23]) by vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:48:39 +0300
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.5]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:48:34 +0300
Received: from NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.86]) by nok-am1mhub-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.5]) with mapi; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:48:34 +0200
From: <teemu.savolainen@nokia.com>
To: <arifumi@nttv6.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:48:32 +0200
Thread-Topic: [addr-select-dt] slide to 6man presentation
Thread-Index: Acsszb5IDmt0Vm7uTKi8aNofkpf84gAAue7Q
Message-ID: <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F5F002AE95D@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <8B38D19E-ABEA-44EE-9E84-92401963ABA8@nttv6.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2010 14:48:34.0389 (UTC) FILETIME=[9F60A850:01CB2CD1]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
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 14:48:39 -0000

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).

Best regards,

Teemu