Re: TSVDIR review of draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-02

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Thu, 03 February 2011 02:41 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando.gont.netbook.win@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 773843A67B0; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 18:41:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.034
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.034 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.565, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jHQbQ9V08hCt; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 18:41:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B5EE3A6778; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 18:41:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so314280gwb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 18:44:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-enigmail-version:openpgp:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CscBwCFkvU5eFQvbP84UZRTwohHxRwYq03s5S9xMuGY=; b=LmfRR3sOE6GUZpNkFnQp+hUnKWy1OvjW4TBgoOZjSCA8ZDAehq0S8wd70Ekd4FNus0 RhtV8w9ICc5A7H4OmCKwdjg0sPo2QmlOL+qdcVZveO5TR0Xm36S7K14vsbmwI2tMJuc7 GL/LNQYowYOV+Nd6fU+buuJItk8SDC3A4HLSk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:openpgp:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=oodnn81BSIvsYqTUFaxB8GI5l2Xg0UhGDxEUex1qKkgPXZHKAxIIOQCUro5Pzrq0MG SNZTU9dvpFaYvsFaxxaoyHu+aI0cRXkTe8FAxs1i/RiB2oqZjKZzBcbpVe10yAf/Q66Q gU4pC+IxwhdAiNen/eWY1+L2OLTpFI1fzjlNA=
Received: by 10.90.89.3 with SMTP id m3mr13188494agb.120.1296701080226; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 18:44:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.123.101] ([190.48.212.16]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b11sm363388ana.18.2011.02.02.18.44.32 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 02 Feb 2011 18:44:39 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Fernando Gont <fernando.gont.netbook.win@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D4A168C.6060100@gont.com.ar>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 23:44:28 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: TSVDIR review of draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-02
References: <4D48B4EA.20503@isi.edu> <4D490FED.6060303@gont.com.ar> <4D4996AE.8060302@isi.edu> <4D49FF33.7030107@gont.com.ar> <4D4A0017.6050401@isi.edu> <4D4A03CE.9020105@gont.com.ar> <4D4A051C.1060501@gont.com.ar> <4D4A09A5.3050306@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4D4A09A5.3050306@isi.edu>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
OpenPGP: id=D076FFF1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "tsv-ads@tools.ietf.org" <tsv-ads@tools.ietf.org>, draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues@tools.ietf.org, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, TSV Dir <tsv-dir@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 02:41:20 -0000

Joe,

On 02/02/2011 10:49 p.m., Joe Touch wrote:
>>>> When I tunnel using an ISI address, whomever sees my address thinks I'm
>>>> in California.
>>> [..]
>>
>> And one might argue that, in this type of scenario, this "breakeage" of
>> geo-location might, in some cases, be desirable.
> 
> It can't break if it was never intended to work.

I've been attended presentations in which people have argued that this
geo-location thing (i.e., multiple-layers of NATs breaking it) is yet
another motivation for v6. -- I don't buy it (nor do I buy much of the
"NAT is evil" and similar stuff).

But this thing is being used, and if multiple layers of NAT will break
it (or, "will prevent it to work the way it used to", if you prefer), it
should be noted.

The fact that geo-location was not considered in the IP design, is
irrelevant. As noted, IP wasn't meant for production, either.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1