Re: [homenet] Comments about Section 3.4.5 of draft-ietf-homenet-arch-10 (Home Networking Architecture for IPv6)
S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sat, 21 September 2013 23:04 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DC9E11E81B3; Sat, 21 Sep 2013 16:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.557
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Muoi8eij3+p; Sat, 21 Sep 2013 16:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A56F11E81AC; Sat, 21 Sep 2013 16:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.147.138]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r8LN456G000313 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 21 Sep 2013 16:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1379804659; bh=C/OIH1M9IkjhJN07Ca+TiiFPefd8xJiCMb+LBSXuE/w=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=epgcZnYJRbLnTL7iA2juHHHx+rdlbU9RJtFTGh/byBtyiOn90AtftKck22VIrp6qd SYy6EwPXTGksbNWxb0I3KUtYAxrVaP2gBmV7ywWkGHrDTKbx1arQcyzLfLxKFjCdvo kIRYBpuNVt7uXCYAQ/m3rvxmjWweX6cqPFWkm1AQ=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1379804659; i=@elandsys.com; bh=C/OIH1M9IkjhJN07Ca+TiiFPefd8xJiCMb+LBSXuE/w=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=3OUvo8GkCfpl2ofLa5+eR6+WzteQQzKXXihAzEfD4Y5OMQeAPoGgIOYHwKdyMxK+3 XOOivEKgKoC8aB/5mPS4RtZUBAtA3kVL8l0qijTEbXrubkfY9l0iBR9zUqa14qVAAR GoCMuOsTqESbnqXADTHRCv3zS084ULAlC0zzcvaM=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130921152930.05eb6c48@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 15:58:34 -0700
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|98d9e33a19bda61dff2ca8d112373dfbp8I0EQ03tjc|ecs.soto n.ac.uk|5AF0A5FD-99E0-438C-9543-811AF06A1032@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130915094002.0ce3d868@elandnews.com> <5AF0A5FD-99E0-438C-9543-811AF06A1032@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|98d9e33a19bda61dff2ca8d112373dfbp8I0EQ03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|5AF0A5FD-99E0-438C-9543-811AF06A1032@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: homenet@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [homenet] Comments about Section 3.4.5 of draft-ietf-homenet-arch-10 (Home Networking Architecture for IPv6)
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/homenet>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 23:04:58 -0000
Hi Tim, At 16:13 18-09-2013, Tim Chown wrote: >This could be expanded to be clearer, and to distinguish the ability >to determine which homenet traffic came from (which is the >perspective above) from the ability to determine which machine in a >home particular traffic came from. > >In the former case I believe the above text is OK. > >In the latter case it depends how frequently the Privacy Address the >device uses changes - in most cases IPv4 NAT "hides" the internal >device better than IPv6 Privacy Addresses. > >Would that type of clarification answer your concern with the text? I suggest dropping the first paragraph in Section 3.4.5. The second paragraph already points to RFC 4941. I would have to read the draft again to be able to provide a better suggestion. Regards, S. Moonesamy