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

otroan@employees.org Thu, 25 June 2020 14:29 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 764843A0B8D; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 07:29:06 -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 z4-gO056lqBr; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 07:29:05 -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 44BF93A0B8C; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 07:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [IPv6:2a02:20c8:5921:100:98c3:bcd5:dcfd:5fee]) (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 C95FF4E11ADA; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 14:29:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8568337BA5C3; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 16:28:59 +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: <9934.1593094699@localhost>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 16:28:59 +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: <A5C2A94B-CF18-44AB-8C3D-32E934AF95DC@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> <858B9014-1274-495C-BB68-A05BB8D1918C@employees.org> <9934.1593094699@localhost>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/bdhEDHtlHNbIM7AfSxNts07LMJY>
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: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 14:29:07 -0000

Michael,

>>> 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".
> 
> When you say NAT "architecture", you are thinking, I guess of:
>    - no IP address literals in protocol
>    - no call-back patterns, like FTP, SIP,
>    - UDP or TCP only

and support NAT traversal (ICE, STUN...)
PCP...

> But, I don't think that's true.
> 
> Yes, it requires all IPv4-only end points (servers, etc.) to be compliant with the
> NAT "architecture", but they already have to do that.
> I think that IPv6-only applications are free to do anything they want.

Please explain why that's not true?

IPv6 only application --- NAT64 --- IPv4 only application

Cheers,
Ole