IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: PCP, and 6434bis (was Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?)

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sat, 18 November 2017 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E8D127419 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 08:05:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.075
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.075 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.076, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 hMsxJ8yBUC2j for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 08:05:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E435120726 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 08:05:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.19.248.238] (unknown [57.190.1.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B2F980A81; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:05:02 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: PCP, and 6434bis (was Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?)
To: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <m1eEGbJ-0000EhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <D43E103C-27B8-48CF-B801-ACCF9B42533E@employees.org> <m1eEHPS-0000FyC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <59B0BEC0-D791-4D75-906C-84C5E423291B@employees.org> <m1eEIGX-0000FjC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <73231F8D-498E-4C77-8DA8-044365368FC9@isc.org> <CAKD1Yr1aFwF_qZVp5HbRbKzcOGqn==MRe_ewaA8Qc8t3+CVu_Q@mail.gmail.com> <44A862B7-7182-4B3A-B46E-73065FC4D852@isc.org> <D42D8D7A-6D19-4862-9BB3-4913058A83B6@employees.org> <CAFU7BARCLq9eznccEtkdnKPAtKNT7Mf1bW0uZByPvxtiSrv6EQ@mail.gmail.com> <183A8772-6FEF-43BD-97F9-DD4A2E21DB90@google.com> <5D9D33A8-88F0-4758-84FA-BCB364E8013F@employees.org> <16B61573-E233-40ED-8A22-CD145EBB8F98@google.com> <A89E7192-0FD4-4750-8745-147AFCC364DC@jisc.ac.uk> <21029.1510865502@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <B54199E7-174D-4A83-85C2-9966769B2DD7@google.com> <EDDBD4B3-744F-4DFE-8FBF-62D7482CF7D4@jisc.ac.uk>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <89a28a07-7025-f6c1-05a7-529bc14b7c95@si6networks.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 20:18:26 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <EDDBD4B3-744F-4DFE-8FBF-62D7482CF7D4@jisc.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/1pVkzlR84ZgcBiHnL7uPDmUWHrs>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 16:05:12 -0000

On 11/18/2017 12:12 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> On 16 Nov 2017, at 22:03, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 16, 2017, at 12:51, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think that we should mention PCP.
>>> I don't know whether to write MAY, SHOULD or MUST.
>>> Probably not MUST.
>>
>> Given that discovering all the relevant PCP servers is potentially impossible without a DHCPv6 client, and those are not explicitly RECOMMENDED, I think the only reasonable option here is "MAY implement a PCP client” and not “SHOULD” or “MUST” to implement a PCP client.
> 
> Yes, if we were to add something, I agree from comments made that MAY is the strongest we should use. 
> 
> But as you say, with lack of support in common OSes, it’s somewhat moot at present.  

100% agreed. But at the same time, that's circular reasoning ;-)

Thanks!

Best regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email