IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 23 June 2020 17:29 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
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 EF36D3A088F for <iot-directorate@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:29:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 k61uJe-T0xZv for <iot-directorate@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x830.google.com (mail-qt1-x830.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::830]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A095B3A0881 for <iot-directorate@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x830.google.com with SMTP id u12so5587525qth.12 for <iot-directorate@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=HYGLbN2s2aM9e59aJoHJt2vfqJeAv00PHMz7/1vXvjY=; b=Tlq8Y3beFpMexrYcJWBYKDQkwOIEXy0n7YSoaqb7gF0tHjaFMIRDHpXZ325u0Phbn/ TeRMVtkqTRBWFbOEBaGoe1nCluaEv+H1iTVk/WkWrZ5T42gNBQZ/DHn0o9vL8BSArPjN wx2wQ+1bLsZS2dW7Da6D6wJLXIh2KdMCZVhYjZBT3yuGBy318KSBNFKeDBAsL4+V4PFL UINL5JtQWZDM/n+BlYva1jOsm/xLJKbHhhK7vlaDgqmEZdt82nWaOtmmbjWkVvnIi9SJ Nie11AIq2mzbEHV4T3kNRxjXY92k3RMqQ0sI0zR6nQ3HmMpl+DNGjLeA25ZWUZDkCYiX cgAA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=HYGLbN2s2aM9e59aJoHJt2vfqJeAv00PHMz7/1vXvjY=; b=tD0Z8UsxvzlxFvQw79cs+3W8EyMp5emwuWctLSQgzPYF5FzyROL85otHTuDlQPHk7T +wqdKuGqXCloAQXx+Xutbg+HdNyw7LThU925qPqrNZRXcRCatD4fr9Bg3/1Ap96U2ups PXauQofg9uFaehOEJOVY2QZu0HCtw8OYzswA5cCBS0wzrjrhvg5RlGqfxCY0GT/VCI58 k/vRDjtG5HM7T1jivzYDjEy3pFgeJOw4ZxIfMjM5/Y3nxhK0ZH2OGwL0oCRGPrgPWhgJ S3e4rKyS6G1b1c1lK01MmZtK48dWO4z2eBdxYnyxHWzBpMwkSOaz8iH7D5Vkc0NRvlAQ 4c0A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5323fR6T8UAoJI0T9eZ9rc4uIXUK4rUhyTtjrxr5mYHPE7Lj9gI1 4TKoQTYbhQ1kAKICmZ5xkD23Ww==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzfY3X8DgUZdzro7JXwZDh1GipsLvFKjXCveLZwqquQl6Va2C0k4+ZBsj1OW+o+qkJQIcF3hw==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:22cd:: with SMTP id g13mr14213249qta.100.1592933339646; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:d960:5b86:b767:9aba? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:d960:5b86:b767:9aba]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 207sm1147970qki.134.2020.06.23.10.28.56 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Jun 2020 10:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <99754B60-643C-4AF9-968A-3348D6F4BD39@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_75E63B28-F3AA-4E53-B75D-731996D47161"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:28:56 -0400
In-Reply-To: <m1jnmO9-0000NZC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Cc: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dhc-v6only.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-v6only.all@ietf.org>, "iot-directorate@ietf.org" <iot-directorate@ietf.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-ietf-7@u-1.phicoh.com>
References: <159290613429.20258.90107321879676135@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr0m637ft_H43r8kw3868X51OcUE+gUZPQ7OvgEbosL8VQ@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB356540C90067D188E624CA3FD8940@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <m1jnmO9-0000NZC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-directorate/erbQTo0oBI19ZR5cdRTd5W9_74A>
Subject: Re: [Iot-directorate] [dhcwg] [Last-Call] 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: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 17:29:02 -0000

On Jun 23, 2020, at 1:07 PM, Philip Homburg <pch-ietf-7@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:
> I consider NAT64-to-hosts a really bad idea. Implementing 464xlat in a CPE
> or other router is not that bad, but making sure that every host in your
> network can properly support NAT64 or 464xlat is not something you should
> want.

On the other hand, if you use 464xlat, it means that every endpoint needs to speak IPv4. This is a significant added cost for constrained devices. So requiring IPv4 and 464xlat on these devices seems like a much higher cost than using NAT64 for the cases where some non-constrained endpoint can’t speak IPv6 for some reason, or isn’t reachable over IPv6. The set of cases where this is necessarily true may not be that large. E.g., the most sensible case would be connecting to the cloud; in this case, NAT64 works fine.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email