IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Wed, 24 June 2020 01:17 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.com>
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 449B83A0D35 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 18:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 gwIpKvZAbW_7 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 18:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd29.google.com (mail-io1-xd29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d29]) (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 0824A3A0D34 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 18:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd29.google.com with SMTP id i25so401999iog.0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 18:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FFFvxrZ1SooaYtUE86gD7N/K+Hj2LpqvIN1AmirjF0Y=; b=rZlk0Ex0JHHP62hAYNlwkDamSh1g844sKdsG73111BdnDsLyvtdZJRG6TVFmZl0Fjt U6SWqV8KLO7ZHMmyQGWRUPPsv8Z8ELJzp9bOi1txE5KqW8S/kY9KWlBcBbZ7Ly/TlytP BIUb6fD52f9mJ2fQd66h//5rxfYKEPBtaWQ+r1hzJoLzBb/iQD1P0R7ClSLJY78wUhMs KrcO0pAYM6hb1sioQVijegVp9Ttk3oOnpz19GmYF4o87cj0nc7EVxtklBhVA3i93az1e NFqCZFJqdGonEGRRBIMB7hsmow225TzaFDNpLZ8HiEsNH2xKJV4UNT8Bvd8If6p6qUgB 9hzA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FFFvxrZ1SooaYtUE86gD7N/K+Hj2LpqvIN1AmirjF0Y=; b=PFjjJZs0m8CJYqSKa5nzTcObMASaKZpho2DE8jkgQwKNLwUBz66JQUyiiWs4qoPK9f mERadfyZyoBUNQKsug7OxqYPtGEXrVhG6iOA3vNwRag7UotvD1bPrctneGDtJ5qz3JrM jgOaVzoLL/OR6h36JPF7OdraFFnzbxvPw2r1YwsXlWLOL4m7OFDAYOp4/5oJcmzPhnnY qTJaDyjRFizYY/wDzz9o7K7vOxJPVhYrQsT8HvdHKMPr0LqpT4vKBuGWS90SbrOzNMTx eDuLGAINR0WPrfE11jL/M2WstqRhZYNP3AAIhK/fIF32S40+ZAjemcuZJZI3sVySwXdp O6pg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530CVPSlZ/ORHVWR5IiVw2wB0ZFKyCV1WpV88KCoE0Rx8CUET6pS qbx5+93KOYBjJY04LtkkZqsEkNOPdxzfUVHg5Ffepw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwJJveBTIWOJuZtGpTw3092medkVc0zN8aPo7K2EpBCW1Vpp6RQpHdQWYmJXqOZF3gejRalebaEN5Ih329C18Q=
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:8d11:: with SMTP id m17mr11294748ioj.171.1592961472952; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 18:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <159290613429.20258.90107321879676135@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr0m637ft_H43r8kw3868X51OcUE+gUZPQ7OvgEbosL8VQ@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB356540C90067D188E624CA3FD8940@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <m1jnmO9-0000NZC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
In-Reply-To: <m1jnmO9-0000NZC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:17:41 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr0OaZ3J0t9022V6E3OAM-u8GkFq2VFmac=0t_hpGGC-Vg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-ietf-7@u-1.phicoh.com>
Cc: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dhc-v6only.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-v6only.all@ietf.org>, "iot-directorate@ietf.org" <iot-directorate@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bd276305a8ca3ee7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/gRhZTZm5Ha8Ey9Y5dfB5vqNgofE>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [Last-Call] 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 01:17:56 -0000

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:07 AM Philip Homburg <pch-ietf-7@u-1.phicoh.com>
wrote:

> >    Now, if you have an escape strategy for that day like this other
> >    option and you can prove there's no place for backward compatibility
> >    problem at that time, then fine with me. Also fine with me is
> >    if that draft is only for NAT64, in which case you could even
> >    have NAT64 in the name of the option to make things clearer.
>
> Another way to look at it:
> I consider NAT64-to-hosts a really bad idea. Implementing 464xlat in a CPE
> or other router is not that bad, but making sure that every host in your
> network can properly support NAT64 or 464xlat is not something you should
> want.
>
> What if some of your hosts are doing native IPv4 and some NAT64, that makes
> troubleshooting even worse.
>

I think these arguments apply to any host-based transition technology, and
any network that mixes IPv4-capable and IPv6-only devices. So in that
sense, it doesn't seem to argue either for or against supporting multiple
transition mechanisms in this option.


> In the unlikely case we get there, we can probably allocate a new option.
>

Right.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email