IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s standardisedprotocols//re: draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Wed, 02 December 2009 02:40 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E80C53A6813 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:40:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.285
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.285 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.314, 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 uTj7DuvNCTc1 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:40:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 479C03A679F for <behave@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:40:17 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApsEANdhFUurRN+J/2dsb2JhbACKN7UQmCKEMQSBag
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,325,1257120000"; d="scan'208";a="112473945"
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Dec 2009 02:40:09 +0000
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.195]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nB22e9Oq022904; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 02:40:09 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Xu Xiaohu' <xuxh@huawei.com>, 'Cameron Byrne' <cb.list6@gmail.com>, 'Simon Perreault' <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
References: <bcff0fba0912011405x56975fe7t442f60ab8f9a1284@mail.gmail.com> <003501ca72f2$e6021a30$d40c6f0a@china.huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:40:09 -0800
Message-ID: <000801ca72f8$c3fa5820$c3f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-reply-to: <003501ca72f2$e6021a30$d40c6f0a@china.huawei.com>
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
Thread-index: Acpy0mn3S8LOZsW/SWW5oxGfCX6NjAAH5KCwAAGDm/A=
Cc: behave@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s standardisedprotocols//re: draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:40:18 -0000

...
> > 100% agree.  Members in a cluster failing can locally be resolved
> > without bouncing the Pref64.  If entire cluster fails, this is very
> > unlikely but catastrophic, i just want a fail safe that can work
> > *mostly*, and if the networks really broke, asking a user to reboot
> 
> Ask a user or ask a huge amount of users?

All the affected users.

> By the way, if one uses one of those mechanisms defined in 
> draft-wing-behave-learn-prefix, other than DNS64, to 
> synthesize IPv6 addresses, does that mean the DNS server or 
> the DHCP server should also dynamically detect the 
> availability of each prefix64?

Whatever hands out the prefix (DNS, IPv6 router advertisements, 
DHCPv6) should hand out a functioning prefix.  Providing a 
non-functioning prefix is harmful.

The same is true of a DHCP server providing the IP address of 
DNS servers, NTP servers, and suchlike.  If a DHCP server hands
out IP addresses for broken (or dead) servers, it is harmful.

Does that need to be stated, though?

-d

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email