Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard
🔓Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> Tue, 16 December 2014 00:52 UTC
Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.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 DE4151A90E9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 16:52:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 hS8ijeojP3H3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 16:52:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C8871A90ED for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 16:52:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2534; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1418691163; x=1419900763; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=8AQIRJEa1fA6AoArx1fjaH10rwbuGWcAgRzbcg1uTMo=; b=cnswjChy+f8gmxWJ0dWVN3OClRFjCQmsS4rJ71C9lMg3WLRnqkDREefQ BcWQwvbOCFvxb4eyqH41Ep0pVB+DITxlCVjJOmlo/ux3TTsIbjJVuYA9d ksRr5d3lBXpQ7K7wLzGcX2G6NU0fiVEvpC4Uu8OCClWpRBQDdiRUd4D9K o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AoEFAD6Bj1StJV2c/2dsb2JhbABagwZSWMVlhXICgSIWAQEBAQF9hAwBAQEDAWcSBQsLGC4hNgYTG4d9AwkIDc8qDYUyAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF4xEgQaBdTMHgxaBEwWEJoUYiAKDboFDgTuEPoVthVEigg6Bfx0wAYJCAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,583,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="110661883"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Dec 2014 00:52:42 +0000
Received: from [10.24.106.80] ([10.24.106.80]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sBG0qYvi027998 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 16 Dec 2014 00:52:38 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard
From: 🔓Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR0301MB06550B62EC5D7A0AB24C7995A8610@DM2PR0301MB0655.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 16:52:34 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0C4D126E-5CD7-4974-9FDC-BC7D1257C1AA@cisco.com>
References: <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> <54890CD3.2050800@gmail.com> <20141211034501.1776A25434AE@rock.dv.isc.org> <20141212051204.GG39631@shrubbery.net> <548B42B5.50509@gmail.com> <8932FCC3-AC9C-4288-9E78-0BB2E1D05470@gmail.com> <DM2PR0301MB06550B62EC5D7A0AB24C7995A8610@DM2PR0301MB0655.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/hKyiNCYRR7LyJgVFQLiKnRmEl0U
Cc: heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 00:52:44 -0000
On Dec 13, 2014, at 12:09 PM, Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com> wrote: > On Friday, December 12, 2014 3:26 PM, Douglas Otis wrote > >> On Dec 12, 2014, at 11:32 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 12/12/2014 18:12, heasley wrote: >>> ... >>>> I don't know anyone enchanted by v6. >>> >>> Strange choice of word. I'm not in the least enchanted by IPv4 >>> or by NAT44 either. I just know as a matter of fact that the >>> IPv4nternet ran out of addresses a while back and we have no >>> alternative but to fix it using IPv6. All the rest is details, >>> important details of course, but details. >> >> Dear Brian, >> >> Agreed. One should not support the standardization of a v6 to v4 transitional scheme which significantly weakens >> protocol security by restricting available port assignments at various points within a path. Suggested bit ranges of >> 7 to 10 bits significantly reduces protections otherwise obtained by random assignment. As such, it makes this a >> trivial matter for malefactors to deduce likely source entropies. Although IPv6 creates different challenges, it >> provides the only viable long term standard moving forward. In addition, NAT keep-alives tend to consume critical > mobile energy resources. > > It would be interesting to study the effect of this port range assignment on applications. For example, a lot of the NAT traversal solutions rely on reserving ports for applications using UPNP IGD, PCP, or the management UI from the NAT. I agree UPnP IGD will break. But PCP should be fine, as it sends a suggested-port in its request and the response can be any port, http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6887#page-41. The UI from the (in-home?) NAT should be okay, as it needs to be A+P aware, and as part of that awareness it would know the assigned port numbers. If the UI belongs to the carrier's A+P device itself, it also knows the assigned port numbers. -d > That's clearly going to break if the target port falls outside the range assigned to the NAT. But the applications have no official way to learn the range. The applications will thus have to implement ever more NAT traversal cleverness. So, this is by no means a harmless hack. It will have implications on a range of end systems. Personally, I don't see any urgency from changing the status away from experimental. > > -- Christian Huitema > > > >
- 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