Re: [IPsec] Draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Tero, all,

I went with an updated version which takes into account the feedback from Valery. The updated version is available at: 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-03 

Can you please put this version in the WGLC? Thanks.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : IPsec [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de
> [e-mail]
> Envoyé : mercredi 17 avril 2019 13:30
> À : Valery Smyslov; 'Tero Kivinen'; [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [IPsec] Draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes
> 
> Hi Velery,
> 
> Works for me. Thanks.
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : IPsec [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Valery Smyslov
> > Envoyé : mercredi 17 avril 2019 09:48
> > À : 'Tero Kivinen'; [e-mail]
> > Objet : Re: [IPsec] Draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was thinking of another alternative design (well, it's a small
> modification
> > of a current one). Instead of defining IP4_ONLY_ALLOWED and
> IP6_ONLY_ALLOWED,
> > define IP4_ALLOWED and IP6_ALLOWED. The semantics would be a positive
> > assertion that this particular AF allowed, without any concerns with the
> > other AF.
> >
> > In this case, the behavior would be as follows:
> >
> > Requested @Init	Supported @Resp	Assigned 		Returned Notification
> >
> > IPv4			IPv6			None			IP6_ALLOWED
> >
> > IPv6			IPv6			IPv6			IP6_ALLOWED
> >
> > IPv6			IPv4			None			IP4_ALLOWED
> >
> > IPv4			IPv4			IPv4			IP4_ALLOWED
> >
> > IPv4 and IPv6	IPv6			IPv6			IP6_ALLOWED
> >
> > IPv4 and IPv6	IPv4			IPv4			IP4_ALLOWED
> >
> > IPv4 and IPv6	IPv6 or IPv4		IPv6 or IPv4		IP4_ALLOWED,
> > 			(Policy-based)				IP6_ALLOWED
> >
> > IPv4 and IPv6	IPv6 and IPv4	IPv6 and IPv4	IP4_ALLOWED,
> > 									IP6_ALLOWED
> >
> > An (mostly theoretical) advantage of this design is that if some new AF
> > appears
> > (well, I understand that it's unlikely in the foreseen future, but who
> > knows),
> > the design will work w/o changes, we only need to define a new <AF>_ALLOWED
> > notification.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Valery.
> >
> >
> > > In the Prague meeting we had two options how to send information what
> > > kind of address families are supported [1]:
> > >
> > > 1) IP6_ONLY_ALLOWED and IP4_ONLY_ALLOWED status notifications which
> > >    are sent whenever only one address family is supported. I.e., if
> > >    only one address family is supported, then IP*_ONLY_ALLOWED is
> > >    sent. If both address families are supported, then no status code
> > >    is sent. This is what current draft proposes.
> > >
> > > 2) ADDITINAL_ADDRESS_FAMILY_POSSIBLE status notification which is used
> > >    when other address family than currently returned could also be
> > >    used. I.e., if no address was assigned, then this status
> > >    notification tells that trying with other address family works, and
> > >    if address was assigned from one address family this tells that
> > >    another request with another address family can also work.
> > >
> > > In the meeting we did not have clear concensus [2] on which of them
> > > are better. The option 2 is closer to what we currently have in
> > > RFC7296 for ADDITIONAL_TS_POSSIBLE.
> > >
> > > Both of the options seems to work, and I think people think the
> > > differences are so small, that they do not care. So unless people
> > > object soon, I think we will keep whatever is in the draft, as I
> > > seemed to be only one who thought the other option would be clearer.
> > >
> > > [1] See slides 6 and 7 of
> > >     https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/slides-104-
> ipsecme-
> > chair-slides-04
> > > [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-104-ipsecme/
> > > --
> > > [e-mail]
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > IPsec mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IPsec mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec