RE: tsv-dir review of draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-03

Alberto García <alberto@it.uc3m.es> Wed, 07 March 2012 10:02 UTC

Return-Path: <alberto@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14C8621F87AD; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 02:02:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.135
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.135 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.164, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 CUnXbeCnZdv7; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 02:02:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6570221F87AB; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 02:02:22 -0800 (PST)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from BOMBO (unknown [163.117.139.62]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0177EC28659; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:02:21 +0100 (CET)
From: Alberto García <alberto@it.uc3m.es>
To: 'Dan Wing' <dwing@cisco.com>, 'IETF discussion list' <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <023f01ccf756$e4d4a110$ae7de330$@com> <00ab01ccfbbb$7e7d0380$7b770a80$@it.uc3m.es> <07e001ccfbbe$13eaba50$3bc02ef0$@com>
In-Reply-To: <07e001ccfbbe$13eaba50$3bc02ef0$@com>
Subject: RE: tsv-dir review of draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-03
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:02:21 +0100
Message-ID: <000001ccfc49$640ae6f0$2c20b4d0$@it.uc3m.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQDWY9DRXMH2S1eCM54jIy0w4V/WFQFLnuCDAxpINIWYKIQl8A==
Content-Language: es
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.8.0.1017-18758.003
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:07:42 -0800
Cc: 'marcelo bagnulo braun' <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>, joe.abley@icann.org, tsv-area@ietf.org, 'Transport Directorate' <tsv-dir@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:02:23 -0000

Hi Dan,

|  > |  Section 7.7, "Shim6 and IPv6 NAT", the problem could be overcome by
|  > the
|  > |  Shim6 node knowing its IPv6 address after NPTv6 translation.
|  > Probably
|  > not
|  > |  worth adjusting the document, though, as NPTv6 is experimental.
|  >
|  > Well, this would not work for HBA, since in this case the addresses
|  > are fixed once generated.
|  
|  NPTv6 does not change the host portion of the address (it only changes
the
|  network portion -- the IPv6 prefix), so HBA should work with NPTv6.
|  

Well, HBAs are built as a hash of many things, including the different
prefixes for which you want to generate an address. Different interface
identifiers are generated by changing the order in which the hash is
performed. 
The issue with NPTv6 is that, in order to verify that the locator is a valid
HBA, the receiver checks that the prefix of the locator is included in the
HBA Parameter Data Structure, and then that the appropriate hash of the
Parameter Data Structure corresponds to the interface identifier. If the
NPTv6 changes the prefix, the first validation, the one regarding to the
prefix, will fail, and HBAs will not work.

Regards,
Alberto