Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard
Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com> Thu, 11 December 2014 03:17 UTC
Return-Path: <douglasroyer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3E251A6FA6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:17:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.92
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MALFORMED_FREEMAIL=2.899, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 xpMcISEyxkq0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:17:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-x233.google.com (mail-pd0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA08B1A6F9A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:17:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f179.google.com with SMTP id fp1so4045296pdb.24 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:17:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=JFWvnJmzl+H4NuMmhsSgMwzQNRETdwHAt75MBU9J1XM=; b=0PwANhS4/AFt8C6QzyxUluAaZwHpjIMKnTBiiWj0mMnumX7osaVaBI9b0oMfxzpr6m HGVbw40bPp49L4003SK+8GxsTv8KB2j+zYDSyhFz9HLLI+yJ4/8NYdPOIUcw8/AC4iFb 6G5cgqBL4gjqjWmVk0Ya96XzYMa0PC39jAOngGccWRmyRXZaVH6x5gd4+4nsh1aWEPkr irMUO1D8c3onCXD3ffFNcfPHBozSwVFCDV0/TEa067cuJLh8NDAjFLkI4XaTviGlPH9M Q/n2qv4BrPxbemv2lNZINdeLFgkISi8/BXSLOPJ7om8Km2gEuBssObBN+HHxyko2cwUj 6k/w==
X-Received: by 10.68.57.144 with SMTP id i16mr12917219pbq.86.1418267863249; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:17:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.4] (184-76-96-188.war.clearwire-wmx.net. [184.76.96.188]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ny9sm5523540pab.25.2014.12.10.19.17.41 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:17:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54890CD3.2050800@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 20:17:39 -0700
From: Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com>
Organization: http://SoftwareAndServices.NET
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard
References: <20141201223832.20448.34524.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A4CFF3FB-A9C5-47EA-A1CA-B900CDBF776E@gmail.com> <547F451C.3010507@dcrocker.net> <D0AE1053.7AA8A%Lee@asgard.org> <AF1B977B-75D4-4AF2-B231-300AF2429317@nominum.com> <CAMm+Lwji9860CKaJB_9xi3ztiVUtP3NZ8AgO1wZAVTKVWW76Nw@mail.gmail.com> <CADC+-gR+sFUELOrdfVj5e3hW-KZoftotbhvEwF6aotZvq5wOkw@mail.gmail.com> <1DF3E368-D915-458C-8009-C508735D3C88@nominum.com> <5488FEE0.2030400@gmail.com> <84E9B4C0-A2E2-41BF-955A-1B125BBE63B1@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <84E9B4C0-A2E2-41BF-955A-1B125BBE63B1@nominum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="------------ms010405000903080800060409"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1bABliW0QT6Db_OmDxPeAeBK-xo
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 11 Dec 2014 03:17:46 -0000
On 12/10/2014 07:43 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > A+P is for home gateways, not for servers. That said, most uses of A+P exclude the well-known port range for assignment to home gateways, so if for some strange reason you wanted to do A+P with servers, you could allocate those ranges to servers. This is not a common or expected use of A+P, however, so this is kind of moot. The essential point of A+P is that it creates deterministic mappings, which makes carrier-grade NAT less painful and more predictable. It really only makes sense in the context of a dual-stack transition model, where you would always prefer IPv6 for flows between hosts that support it. > So the expectation is that ISP's will replace your NAT/router with one that meets this specification? Why would they just not replace it with a IPv6 one? I still see no time to implement gain if this is the plan. If the mapping is done at the ISP layer and *not* the home router, then they better NAT the IP they give you, or your operating system firewall will go nuts trying to figure out when and what port range to open up. They can do that now with NAT, so why would they implement? *Or* your operating systems firewall software, virus protection, and firewalls better be updated to this specification before it is deployed. If they NAT, then what is the gain over the current NAT? I can see this may have been a great alternative to NAT, but we already have NAT. So why would they implement? How about port 6112 incoming, probably the most common gamer port. (http://www.speedguide.net/port.php?port=6112) Which DHCP home 1.2.3.4 IP address gets it? Or do all gaming servers that connect to port 6112 on home systems have to be re-written to find the correct port dynamically? I know about port 6112 because I did the IANA registration for UNIX/CDE dtspcd on port 6112. I get many emails from people wanting to know about their game and how to configure it and their router (which I simply delete). Or maybe they are wrong and it does not need to be incoming and makes no difference. This would also break all dynamic-DNS servers. Many ISP's could care less about home based dynamic-DNS updated servers. Some care, it would break those that do not care. It looks to me to be another DMARC type oops. -- Doug Royer - (http://K7DMR.us / http://DougRoyer.US) DouglasRoyer@gmail.com 714-989-6135
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Christian de Larrinaga
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Bob Hinden
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ralph Droms
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… John Curran
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Dave Cridland
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… George Michaelson
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… 🔓Dan Wing
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… George Michaelson
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… l.wood
- IPv6 Adoption Curve (was Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 … Dave Crocker
- Re: IPv6 Adoption Curve (was Re: Last Call: RFC 6… George Michaelson
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: IPv6 Adoption Curve (was Re: Last Call: RFC 6… Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
- Re: IPv6 Adoption Curve (was Re: Last Call: RFC 6… Randy Bush
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Fernando Gont
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ralph Droms
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Eggert, Lars
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Randy Bush
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Bob Hinden
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… George Michaelson
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Fernando Gont
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… 🔓Dan Wing
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Lee Howard
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Doug Royer
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Doug Royer
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Doug Royer
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Lee Howard
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… heasley
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Lee Howard
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… John Levine
- Re: [eX-bulk] : Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successfu… Christopher LILJENSTOLPE
- Re: [eX-bulk] : Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successfu… Christopher LILJENSTOLPE
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… James Woodyatt
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… John R Levine
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Douglas Otis
- RE: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Christian Huitema
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- RE: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Christian Huitema
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… heasley
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… heasley
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… 🔓Dan Wing
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… 🔓Dan Wing
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Stewart Bryant