IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets-03.txt> (Security Implications of IPv6 on IPv4 Networks) to Informational RFC

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 03 April 2013 01:25 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
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 1539721F86C5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 18:25:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 hOlj6Htru9iR for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 18:25:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og126.obsmtp.com (exprod7og126.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.206]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8126821F86B7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 18:25:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob126.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUVuE9uJOz55KkzUWrPlIUcPaccCnPTm5@postini.com; Tue, 02 Apr 2013 18:25:10 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF8051B8707 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 18:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6FA719005C; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 18:25:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 18:25:09 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets-03.txt> (Security Implications of IPv6 on IPv4 Networks) to Informational RFC
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets-03.txt> (Security Implications of IPv6 on IPv4 Networks) to Informational RFC
Thread-Index: AQHOMAkP2n4gvj4/EE+x1APPHRWvsJjEKW+A
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 01:25:09 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077512E746@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <20130329130326.13012.1402.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130330230305.0bce91a8@resistor.net> <2671C6CDFBB59E47B64C10B3E0BD5923042CFA4019@PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130401134936.0a5a1420@resistor.net> <515B6A04.9080400@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <515B6A04.9080400@si6networks.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <4ADE700A4B16D34AB9DE2F0D0632BB6A@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: SM <sm@resistor.net>, "<ietf@ietf.org>" <ietf@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, 03 Apr 2013 01:25:11 -0000

On Apr 2, 2013, at 7:30 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
>> I agree with the last sentence.  Happy Eyeballs is about the HTTP. 
>> There are other applications protocols too. :-) 
> 
> Happy eyeballs is about HTTP. But part of the approach predates "Happy
> Eyeballs" -- please see RFC5461.

It's certainly true that we usually talk about Happy Eyeballs in the context of HTTP, but I use it for ssh as well, and I think it's applicable across a broad range of application protocols.   It is not applicable to _every_ protocol, but that's as strong a qualification as I'd put on it—saying it's only applicable to HTTP is not correct.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email