IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Iot-directorate] [dhcwg] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-dhc-v6only-03

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 25 June 2020 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: iot-directorate@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iot-directorate@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9F483A0BC0; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 07:18:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 tgXhjWCtahDh; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 07:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEB443A0BD9; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 07:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3F5B389C9; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 10:15:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id O9Ai0rcnh3vM; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 10:15:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A52F5389C0; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 10:15:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF5FF534; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 10:18:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: otroan@employees.org
cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, "iot-directorate@ietf.org" <iot-directorate@ietf.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dhc-v6only.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-v6only.all@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <858B9014-1274-495C-BB68-A05BB8D1918C@employees.org>
References: <159290613429.20258.90107321879676135@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr0m637ft_H43r8kw3868X51OcUE+gUZPQ7OvgEbosL8VQ@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB356540C90067D188E624CA3FD8940@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAKD1Yr0cExR2hNcFPG1jf2_m+owcj36PjBo5K2AfkbQbbBu4bQ@mail.gmail.com> <20606.1592969356@localhost> <858B9014-1274-495C-BB68-A05BB8D1918C@employees.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 10:18:19 -0400
Message-ID: <9934.1593094699@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-directorate/_tT55P-J_XMH1PWT80uzenOnl88>
Subject: Re: [Iot-directorate] [dhcwg] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-dhc-v6only-03
X-BeenThere: iot-directorate@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the IoT Directorate Members <iot-directorate.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iot-directorate>, <mailto:iot-directorate-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iot-directorate/>
List-Post: <mailto:iot-directorate@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iot-directorate-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-directorate>, <mailto:iot-directorate-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 14:18:27 -0000

otroan@employees.org wrote:
    >> The key point of the option is that host does not need IPv4.
    >> I agree with some commenters that it isn't obvious that it implies that NAT64
    >> is available.  But, we have other signals for that, I think.
    >>
    >> NAT64 puts *no* requirements on the hosts (except that they be willing to
    >> succeed network attachment without IPv4).

    > Apart from forcing all IPv6 applications to be compliant with the NAT "architecture".

When you say NAT "architecture", you are thinking, I guess of:
    - no IP address literals in protocol
    - no call-back patterns, like FTP, SIP,
    - UDP or TCP only

But, I don't think that's true.

Yes, it requires all IPv4-only end points (servers, etc.) to be compliant with the
NAT "architecture", but they already have to do that.
I think that IPv6-only applications are free to do anything they want.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email