Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt
Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Tue, 14 February 2012 22:30 UTC
Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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 EEE8B21E80E1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:30:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.539
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jt4ECj3b1MLJ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:30:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C78C21E80C4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:30:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q1EMUCrV024678 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:30:12 GMT
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk q1EMUCrV024678
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=200903; t=1329258613; bh=Y/GjB4jjpZzLvRCP2Xh+hswyBhU=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:References:To; b=TIRuHLAmiMXQFI4N5PO2NlfmmMinbZRUv46IVZjIsiNfmRf1QO4GsjqHT14Vcq0L6 bL2UDuQiOV0wRtmk4hHV82fBFORNIBS1GcY88cqux0+Uqv+X4p1WBh+0Q36N/G96bM sGw9F41cFdcGmw1U2My9BXbKAqkDb8XfN89WOJk4=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP id o1DMUC0543729296qY ret-id none; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:30:12 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.102] (host213-123-213-183.in-addr.btopenworld.com [213.123.213.183]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q1EMU7ki003791 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:30:08 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B3F2D73@TK5EX14MBXW601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:30:06 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <EMEW3|1922cdd90819e3cfc832f75e3f87d023o1DMUC03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|71B8F286-05BA-4AB1-B767-6C09F22E3E7C@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <4EB3F3D6.4090302@innovationslab.net> <CAC1-dtnas++ahkBmpdyq7DbyAEg0W6bZY16qGzKmsP10vC39FQ@mail.gmail.com> <4EEA3D20.7020603@innovationslab.net> <CAKFn1SFvs0PzBXtEWWo814Oe5TJmbQEJBm5FeYJY5xzrr=KFSw@mail.gmail.com> <4EEA5793.8080800@gmail.com> <CAKFn1SHA-=cQ_=5rJVLVMvQYXoTL_D1dCR=uWZK-qFrcGp6P-w@mail.gmail.com> <4EEA7AF8.2090508@gmail.com> <CAC1-dtn9M8-9cPAmkhCiGV0Gi5+Gfs8GAssTOaA-ZFhyUY3feg@mail.gmail.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B3C3777@TK5EX14MBXW601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B3EDB9E@TK5EX14MBXW601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B3F1DD6@TK5EX14MBXW601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B3F2D73@TK5EX14MBXW601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <71B8F286-05BA-4AB1-B767-6C09F22E3E7C@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: 6man Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=o1DMUC054372929600; tid=o1DMUC0543729296qY; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=1:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: q1EMUCrV024678
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:30:15 -0000
On 13 Feb 2012, at 22:01, Dave Thaler wrote: > Yet another problem in draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise... > > Section 2.4 (Private IPv4 address scope): > [...] >> The algorithm currently specified in RFC 3484 is based on the >> assumption that a source address with a small scope cannot reach a >> destination address with a larger scope. > [...] > > The above sentence is simply not true, it was NOT based on such an > assumption at all. It was based on the assumption that it was > less likely to work. There's two reasons why it's less likely to work. > First, it might or might not be able to reach it (the text overstates > by saying it cannot... it was acknowledged that it may or may not). > Second, if it goes through a NAT, it might not work for protocols > that embed IP addresses in payloads. > [...] I certainly agree that that wording can be improved. Tim > >> Due to this assumption, in the presence of both a NATed private IPv4 >> address and a transitional address (like 6to4 or Teredo), the host >> will choose the transitional IPv6 address to access dual-stack peers >> [I-D.denis-v6ops-nat-addrsel]. Choosing transitional IPv6 >> connectivity over native IPv4 connectivity, particularly where the >> transitional connectivity is unmanaged, is not considered to be >> generally desirable. >> >> This issue can be fixed by changing the address scope of private IPv4 >> addresses to global. > > Section 10 of RFC 3484 contained many examples. -revise contains > no such example of what it's talking about, so I have to guess. Let's > look at 3 cases. > > Case 1: > D set = { global IPv6, global IPv4 } > S set = { Teredo IPv6, RFC1918 IPv4 } > > Under RFC 3484 rules, Destination Address Selection would prefer > the Teredo connectivity under rule 2 (Prefer matching scope). > > Under -revise rules, Destination Address Selection would still prefer > the Teredo connectivity under rule 6 (Prefer higher precedence), > since the precedence of the (non-Teredo) destination address > beats the precedence of the IPv4 address. Hence -revise > does not change the behavior in this case. > > Case 2: > D set = { Teredo IPv6, global IPv4 } > > Not an interesting case because Teredo addressing should be > disabled when a host has a global IPv4 address. > > Case 3: > D set = { global IPv4 = 1.2.3.4 } > S set = { NAT-ed IPv4 = 10.2.3.4, global IPv4 = 128.66.3.4 } > > Under RFC 3484 rules, Source Address Selection would prefer > the global IPv4 address under Rule 2(Prefer appropriate scope). > Under -revise rules, Source Address Selection would instead prefer > the NAT'ed IPv4 under Rule 8 (Longest matching prefix). > > This is broken. I don't see a real case the proposed change > fixes, I only see real cases it breaks. > > -Dave > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
- 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise… Brian Haberman
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Dave Thaler
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Dave Thaler
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Chris Grundemann
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Brian Haberman
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Roger Jørgensen
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Brian Haberman
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Roger Jørgensen
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Chris Grundemann
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Roger Jørgensen
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Tim Chown
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Chris Grundemann
- -06 candidate Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: -06 candidate Mark Andrews
- Re: -06 candidate Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: -06 candidate Brian E Carpenter
- Re: -06 candidate Mark Andrews
- ULA macro in the policy table Re: -06 candidate Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: ULA macro in the policy table Re: -06 candida… Mark Andrews
- Re: ULA macro in the policy table Re: -06 candida… Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: ULA macro in the policy table Re: -06 candida… Mark Andrews
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Dave Thaler
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Dave Thaler
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Dave Thaler
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Dave Thaler
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Dave Thaler
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Arifumi Matsumoto
- ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Tim Chown
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-re… Tim Chown
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Arifumi Matsumoto
- RE: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Dave Thaler
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Mark Andrews
- RE: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Dave Thaler
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Mark Andrews
- RE: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Dave Thaler
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Kerry Lynn
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Arifumi Matsumoto
- RE: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Marc Lampo
- Re: IPv6 zone index was Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf… Arifumi Matsumoto
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Mark Andrews
- RE: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Marc Lampo
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Mark Andrews
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Mark Andrews
- Re: Re: [homenet] ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3… Ray Hunter
- RE: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Marc Lampo
- RE: [homenet] ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-… Anders Brandt
- Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.… Mark Andrews
- Re: [homenet] ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: [homenet] ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-… Anders Brandt
- Re: [homenet] ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-… Tim Chown
- Re: [homenet] ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-… Don Sturek
- IPv6 zone index was Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6ma… t.petch
- RE: [homenet] ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-… Anders Brandt
- RE: [homenet] ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-… Anders Brandt
- Re: IPv6 zone index was Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [homenet] ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-… Brian E Carpenter