IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-area] Revving draft-intarea-shared-addressing-issues

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Mon, 14 June 2010 19:16 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADC623A69AA for <int-area@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.666
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.444, BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 kL1FgJTLBn4z for <int-area@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CFD63A6981 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtMJAJMcFkxAZnwM/2dsb2JhbACHY4EUlXNxpkWaEoUaBINNg0E
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,415,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="121620027"
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Jun 2010 19:16:43 +0000
Received: from dwingwxp01 (sjc-vpn2-998.cisco.com [10.21.115.230]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5EJGgkV014365; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:16:42 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Dave Thaler' <dthaler@microsoft.com>, 'Matthew Ford' <ford@isoc.org>
References: <1339FDB5-B518-4210-9D7E-6711E4E10DB0@isoc.org><020401cb08ec$97759280$b94c150a@cisco.com> <4C11EB81.9090407@gmail.com><01ee01cb0a4c$1d528290$7844150a@cisco.com><6A8F3173-1CC1-4A0A-A96D-EE5AF1D8B58D@isoc.org> <04b601cb0be9$308d1930$7844150a@cisco.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF652C05FEC1@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:16:41 -0700
Message-ID: <056301cb0bf6$1fd9aa10$7844150a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: AQHLCJzpPlC2L8n+eEa0/YO9dB51gJJ8PUGAgACdQ4CAAiHRAIACrQsAgACNHQD//6BPQIAAAmtA
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
In-Reply-To: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF652C05FEC1@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Cc: int-area@ietf.org, 'Brian E Carpenter' <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, draft-ford-shared-addressing-issues@tools.ietf.org, 'Lorenzo Colitti' <lorenzo@google.com>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Revving draft-intarea-shared-addressing-issues
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/int-area>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:16:41 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Thaler [mailto:dthaler@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 12:05 PM
> To: Dan Wing; 'Matthew Ford'
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org; 'Brian E Carpenter'; 
> draft-ford-shared-addressing-issues@tools.ietf.org; 'Lorenzo Colitti'
> Subject: RE: [Int-area] Revving draft-intarea-shared-addressing-issues
> 
> > Some routers enable 6to4 [RFC3056] on their WAN link.  6to4 
> requires a
> > publicly-routable IPv4 address.  Enabling 6to4 behind a NAT causes a
> > disconnected IPv6 island."
> 
> The last sentence above is incorrect.  The second sentence is correct.
> So one cannot "enable" 6to4 behind a NAT since one has no 
> publically-routable IPv4 address.  Hence one does not get an IPv6
> island.  One gets no IPv6 at all (from 6to4 anyway).

I was attempting to summarize the problem that has been ascribed to Apple's
Airport Extreme routers turning on 6to4, which is mentioned in many threads on
the Internet including
http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg00263.html

If there is more accurate wording, I'm all for it.  I would like
some discussion of CPE (and hosts) blindly enabling 6to4 causing
problems when the CPE's IPv4 WAN address is shared.  

-d

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email