Re: [Anima] WGLC on draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-03 - Respond by July 28, 2017

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 03 August 2017 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42AD6131E9F for <>; Thu, 3 Aug 2017 16:31:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VAS5ztnfGBwP for <>; Thu, 3 Aug 2017 16:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85957131EBA for <>; Thu, 3 Aug 2017 16:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u5so738219pgn.0 for <>; Thu, 03 Aug 2017 16:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=FkKdpTmaVMHnP6sAkXKiSCzX68+BIZWgUiyWdkI4jPA=; b=Ip8spMK89UlEfnO4avu2OsfqQI6IQYB1CyCAmpmPBhNtLx1K6noOz5U8fuQQATFqgM 1NsfBQz1CUtqC8S8c5XvJ0xsilc9ySsEC6uVC3e49cnRHBfGoGHsMZ7S1tjtScSGd4WE TAUBNkug6q0QbadNfwRi06bf58B0dY2yltgzVwXPQZoLlwrFvj/9UOzIW6iYf5h3LKKK rF5A5LCeobxoI/Etj9+FP6eKNYczQx547GSV/pZS/4ZNitbUYCwVM/fYsF3ZZYtD10b7 psBxiw5KVU7BX7miry2YMFAy9KXIegHB+qBbUFaq2fVjkbi+SeeMFrPAyPDzb+cpbXss yeNg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FkKdpTmaVMHnP6sAkXKiSCzX68+BIZWgUiyWdkI4jPA=; b=sd4cTesYbSHom7Ga2JKoa+XXA1L30r4gO1DrPNXPdvT4BK//ztCx1mMyDhQyN6VLy+ UGAeZF0m82fQqpTzcAkw7dgxCF3hygTOB+8qcGtBf7H18FrvLetrEGZrIKlOaAvD3XEo XkRyQT3k/jKKrAS5T7x7stSREYqLFWsrnCUMKhZ6UnnTA8BXMIBcV5vbxH9UvAuBd3ZH WlD4M/nu7ZjazfS+zrF/NUyIQ8T0XYhbdrfVuhvvQ41x14uWnK1AXSngrzHWQ5zg0Jxk BQydUSnxk1pU4oUymluQ19DUR5h2ZT3+KaBApdsSagYnOhhoo+s0Xn3yrB/GfUuQ5exo 5PaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw1112grgYd6bRdwboh0BZ8bBTPy9TP3DnugDtYqUl20sXYtc2WL/H 9td3d7SEW/TUpckf
X-Received: by with SMTP id d15mr476125pln.355.1501803093922; Thu, 03 Aug 2017 16:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:521f:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:521f:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id s18sm117898pfg.166.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 03 Aug 2017 16:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
To: Toerless Eckert <>
Cc: Anima WG <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2017 11:31:37 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Anima] WGLC on draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-03 - Respond by July 28, 2017
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2017 23:31:36 -0000

I'm just coming back on a couple of points. Generally -04 is almost there...

On 03/08/2017 13:08, Toerless Eckert wrote:
...>>> 2.1.8.  Long term direction of the solution
>> ...>    1.  NMS hosts should at least support IPv6.  IPv4/IPv6 NAT in the
>>>        network to enable use of ACP is long term undesirable.  Having
>>>        IPv4 only applications automatically leverage IPv6 connectivity
>>>        via host-stack options is likely non-feasible (NOTE: this has
>>>        still to be vetted more).
>> That NOTE needs to be cleared up. Something like 464XLAT (RFC6877)
>> might be a good compromise.
> See the rewritten SIIT section. IMHO, there can be no simpler "network" based
> address translation. Where network based means that the translation happens
> in some device he network operator needs to provision. Like the ACP edge device.
> Or even an additional address translation device.
> So, the only IMHO easier option is when the OS of the NMS host would internally
> have IPv4/IPv6 translation so the device/VM looks to the outside like full IPv6.

Yes, that is exactly the effect of 464XLAT in the end-system (not in the

> Alas, i didn't have the time to investigate these options. And most likely if at
> all you could only make those work for linux.

Linux or Windows, yes. In a vendor's router o/s, who knows? But maybe they
will all support IPv6 anyway?

> So, for now i just remove the note and clarified the last sentence a bit.
> If there is anything specific to be said bout why 464XLAT might be better
> longer term, let me know and i can add it. For now it looks like yet another
> network device configured option to me, but i have not tried to understand it
> all the way.

I think you'd need one of the 464XLAT authors to have a look at the scenario,
because I don't claim to understand it all.

>>>    Using current registration options implies that there will not be
>>>    reverse DNS mapping for ACP addresses.
>> Really? I assume we're talking about two-faced DNS, and afaik nothing
>> stops an operator providing reverse mapping in the private DNS.
>> That seems to be implied by the following paragraphs, so the text
>> seems inconsistent anyway.
> I know it under the name "split-horizon DNS". Is there any reference ?

The DNS community in the IETF hates split DNS so much that
not much has been written about it. I did find these: