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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 03 August 2017 23:34 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A299131C2C for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Aug 2017 16:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sB_TqmRyJo-k for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Aug 2017 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22a.google.com (mail-pg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B73861318A2 for <anima@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Aug 2017 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id v77so713783pgb.3 for <anima@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Aug 2017 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; 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=DrvHV02OfCCCJaked7lgrWEGAX9QWVmtv1jDz1fcB5E=; b=QTp0LKFj0FXccAnIa/jWbnw4izBjDHFxkzbyhdDUimJYqoHJ0Cx7iiIVXf4F5tOxG2 4gClbMPbp92Da94HYr8brORDjrmZTwEcIEHHofJg158zocTKayo3eRuKHXgERdKdVmeO y5/X8b1h557f6wlpPbyOQw6Dp1KwaScSpI2A4TvkcxzKCJC2cCL9WlGERB1f2VRHiUKN 8J/Pkz+yYgi9jIHTk6x+nhwPGrkhqm5XMWlU6kIl6x3HmMlmIU1oOxORzk+YAfZC81W3 tjCAiDkxNwrwnDyWz5+odfenxG3SN/vioNHA8/HJU1wMDGL0Gbzl3uhSgNoM+hq375E3 k4BA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; 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=DrvHV02OfCCCJaked7lgrWEGAX9QWVmtv1jDz1fcB5E=; b=riKHqxc0gBkWVxrjqRZl52WRD9YB+VnkcUlU9Xks9TCaJWfH478O2SwoGCQN6x2hBQ EbqfwEUCjsHLNgK0X6TYkOznh4y/IbOtSjJwWOKMiIEux4X8lfYLMgBaa+ZYQcD311p/ Z+wCLI/yjscn4UuMstSLlmaPrj73ZT4n80D/D0y4up8dTUMG/VV0bCNDnm9yQJPL5wIR 39MnwHkTzCG3gxJHZzebrcZE7sm02EVNpLaYbrlVn+T9xKO+Ymv7Tf9iWiLOPOdSL/5V wqcFaPlsDg0dOo3RpaUXbPLykU6iKFKcxEICaF/CwqZle25vwg6hLzyCgxcyXHImbWBC jFTA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110+RWgOD8xXuzvD2Z+pEFEEMQdoy+gdnm0gI/RrMHgtsSn2UL8O K4Z70P/HCcVWdyt+
X-Received: by 10.84.167.2 with SMTP id c2mr494366plb.371.1501803293136; Thu, 03 Aug 2017 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:521f:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:521f:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d4sm143839pfj.59.2017.08.03.16.34.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 03 Aug 2017 16:34:52 -0700 (PDT)
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
Cc: Anima WG <anima@ietf.org>
References: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B927CDFE66F@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <136a3ebd-dedb-9e2b-86be-a7d5fd12ad9b@gmail.com> <20170803010809.GA12136@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <a12a758e-9edc-14c0-a4e5-a051b83c9e97@gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <c2dc278b-e47e-4c05-3014-15ea59276b8b@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 11:34:57 +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: <a12a758e-9edc-14c0-a4e5-a051b83c9e97@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/u_p5VgGgFQXCvzvpzLZdHfSK4bI>
Subject: Re: [Anima] WGLC on draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-03 - Respond by July 28, 2017
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2017 23:34:55 -0000

I wrote: "Generally -04 is almost there..."

I meant: Generally -05 is almost there...

Regards
   Brian

On 04/08/2017 11:31, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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
> router).
> 
>> 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:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6950#section-4
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7157#section-6.3
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-richardson-homenet-secret-gardens
> 
> Regards,
>     Brian
>