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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 23 June 2020 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 5F9903A094A; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.656
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.656 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR=1.242, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 48Vsgfr60NeP; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 661473A0949; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2438389A9; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:53:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id HTrPk8bxRScO; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:53:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13F43389A5; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:53:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9928486; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:56:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-ietf-7@u-1.phicoh.com>
cc: ietf@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>
In-Reply-To: <m1jnmtd-0000OoC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
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> <32056.1592933199@localhost> <m1jnmtd-0000OoC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:56:34 -0400
Message-ID: <21749.1592938594@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/iYTLXmGC0Tdj4UrHwDAdcRymRNw>
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: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 18:56:41 -0000

Philip Homburg <pch-ietf-7@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:
    >> Huh? NAT64 can involves no host changes at all (other than not having IPv4 to
    >> succeed in network attachment, and as Lorenzo said, IPv4 literals in some ancien
    >> t protocols).

    > I don't know if you consider http://192.0.2.1/ an ancient protocol, but this
    > is typically something that breaks with NAT64.

Yes, I do consider it past it's time, but not as ancient as FTP.
It does have literals in the protocol, in the Host: header.

https://192.0.2.1/ is the modern equivalent, and due to the IPv4 literal,
does not get security, so it doesn't work.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-