Re: [dhcwg] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-dhc-v6only-03

otroan@employees.org Wed, 24 June 2020 07:04 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F3E13A0BE9; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 00:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 d_9dVLho6X4j; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 00:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 259213A0BD0; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 00:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (dhcp21719716450.blix.com [217.197.164.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 79CFB4E11AD6; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 07:04:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DF11376E9A8; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 09:04:17 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <20606.1592969356@localhost>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 09:04:16 +0200
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, "iot-directorate@ietf.org" <iot-directorate@ietf.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dhc-v6only.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-v6only.all@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <858B9014-1274-495C-BB68-A05BB8D1918C@employees.org>
References: <159290613429.20258.90107321879676135@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr0m637ft_H43r8kw3868X51OcUE+gUZPQ7OvgEbosL8VQ@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB356540C90067D188E624CA3FD8940@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAKD1Yr0cExR2hNcFPG1jf2_m+owcj36PjBo5K2AfkbQbbBu4bQ@mail.gmail.com> <20606.1592969356@localhost>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/8M0WGqSjKpAhwrAv27Vctm6OfvA>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-dhc-v6only-03
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 07:04:23 -0000

> The key point of the option is that host does not need IPv4.
> I agree with some commenters that it isn't obvious that it implies that NAT64
> is available.  But, we have other signals for that, I think.
> 
> NAT64 puts *no* requirements on the hosts (except that they be willing to
> succeed network attachment without IPv4).

Apart from forcing all IPv6 applications to be compliant with the NAT "architecture".

Ole