Re: AD Evaluation : draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-06

Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> Mon, 04 November 2019 03:38 UTC

Return-Path: <furry13@gmail.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 BE2BD120121; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:38:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 vnFT1srksFyi; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:38:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x730.google.com (mail-qk1-x730.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::730]) (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 420E71200FD; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:38:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x730.google.com with SMTP id 205so14932109qkk.1; Sun, 03 Nov 2019 19:38:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SwD3d5MC/6GPiZtRS84YdAmwX28i7vSl8y+O7orho3A=; b=HmMmv3jXGIPBtMrMRmEtnuGsioQR+QUaOinWkExtVCbC68ZLPrtHQB1TDKr7tBOvxP dYd8Hjij9iln7Djmv1gcd+yBA6F0Nbws/NbtZHd32c9qbTtczg2aRd+H44uDCHsrfoXK DVGoN2SA8VO8cR2zELxUiOOyP6sOlMnkpy2Pr9sxTCHvjwgYve+TIwYzdY9tdaWkh1k6 5XmGMLbsBoZDlYbJsMmYs70VUAVUHYsOWWHHxOFgSxwU1eQq4GLvhXSEbqbugoN7ONX+ 8mCdZFxdVbViDlj32ZcnZj/5ez1eVw0tbQYVRMMJ7he0kbXFkKw12nOIiEpBloi1byCq iVMw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SwD3d5MC/6GPiZtRS84YdAmwX28i7vSl8y+O7orho3A=; b=n2/zRjmEiwX5Rv8JoFXILPxtWgxTnBTLDNp12J/Z/UcKJcY6+FIPmL4ZAtBMbb6TRS hqtUomnHvG4tnqpcnBLr1r83bQc8ZjFiSyGcXmdzs3Tu9LLe4KlZ/PRCYeqiAAVI1irn 2vor1SHNR2HtN4OiYwMpEce664qBEiIDx67bWF2ZZsqQun817+T6bmCui2+Abtl4wqw0 jl8N8IjeSdvocDFMKKXpkCSyu5HDBh7IundmPFkqewXTWdJEjf6kQrq/lrgAYUmlnRpv Dg+Sb6xeb0P86gddYILbUt7OyUKWzgc6CiYh0WSxHahXSHvnkkckrlIIqzKGE2TrrceO YA2Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX0hGWhKvE0nqFVHqwdKJiw7luvAdzs8/1EQtoFt523aBlJaQCu MidtoSsfiOV4hrrO5YCqnVJpwcFd5Lw/rLPKyo7X5m3F
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxbvpqvo3xRpV1WRoplulIJI8GUfY6Aw3tZb106mhP973/p8cclW00W0QUVn7BAxZgePygOZNC5mluBbH90hzU=
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:c119:: with SMTP id z25mr16506864qki.417.1572838722962; Sun, 03 Nov 2019 19:38:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <F1B31C38-7CDB-4057-A573-D6AF76B264D3@kaloom.com> <CAFU7BASEnMTZ71h6sZ3q1SajxtFFrn2dQVEHWiutuG6G+rWJqQ@mail.gmail.com> <8789B529-16CB-4F52-A274-5F2E47137642@kaloom.com>
In-Reply-To: <8789B529-16CB-4F52-A274-5F2E47137642@kaloom.com>
From: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 14:38:31 +1100
Message-ID: <CAFU7BARFQCVmw6X0DdFZ4-3693AD78yigXAEfUSRa8HBA7aRtA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: AD Evaluation : draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-06
To: Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@kaloom.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/5y3hjH649Xt4R7Mad8ELci2tKvg>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 03:38:46 -0000

On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 2:08 PM Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@kaloom.com>; wrote:
> >> Please use a documentation prefix, say 192.0.2.0/24, instead of the RFC1918 address currently used in the example.
> >
> > Actually I'd agree with Lorenzo here..IMHO 10.0.0.0/8 case describes a
> > realistic scenario while 192.0.2/024 would look a bit artificial.  If
> > the text was saying 'if the operator would like to route all private
> > address space  through NAT64 device A' instead of
> > 'if the operator would like to route 10.0.0.0/8 through NAT64 device
> > A' we would not be using the example address space here, would we?
> >
> > Would it be better if that sentence says:
> > ''For example if the operator would like to route RFC1918 address
> > space, e.g. 10.0.0.0/8  through NAT64 device A’?
>
> I think this formulation is a bit better but I liked Mark Smith’s idea on my Additional Documentation Prefixes subthread (Thanks Mark!!) of using x’s instead of the 0’s here to obfuscate. Then it will be clear to readers that it is private space while not being directly usable. i.e. do something like
>
> "For example if the operator would like to route RFC1918 address
> space, e.g. 10.x.x.x/8  through NAT64 device A"

If '/8' is used then there is no difference between '10.0.0.0/8' and
'10.x.x.x/8' and 'x.x.x' would only confuse a reader, IMHO.
Please note that we are not trying to pick up any arbitrary prefix but
instead discussing a practical example on 'how to treat NAT64 traffic
for RFC1918 address space differently from the Internet traffic. Also,
using '10.0.0.0/8' is easy as it translated to 'a00' in
2001:db8:a:b::a00:0/104 which, I believe, easy to comprehend.

If you think that the explicit mention of RFC1918 makes the
formulation better, how about this:
"For example if the operator is using 10.0.0.0/8 private address space
internally and would like to route RFC1918 addresses through NAT64
device A’

> >> * Section 5
> >>
> >> The use of the term “lifetime” or “life time” to denote both the intended period of use and the value of the Lifetime field which is one-eighth of the intended value is a bit confusing. Can you deconflict this by calling the field “ShortLifetime" or something similar?
> >
> > How about 'Lifetime Multiplier’?
>
> I would have assumed that the multiplier in this case would actually be 8. How about “Scaled Lifetime”? Does that work?

Heh, I was thinking the same and actually renamed it to 'Lifetime
Multiplicand' but after discussing it with Lorenzo the idea was
discarded.
Scaled Lifetime would do, thanks!

-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry