IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPv6] Adoption call for draft-bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 29 March 2024 07:05 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 48638C169435 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mlD316scTGvE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00:e000:2bb::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E9C5C1519B3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dyas.sandelman.ca (unknown [202.74.197.210]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A12AF201C6; Fri, 29 Mar 2024 07:05:50 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: relay.sandelman.ca; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=sandelman.ca header.i=@sandelman.ca header.b="OaACS+s6"; dkim-atps=neutral
Received: by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4B957A1923; Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:40:12 +1100 (AEDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=dyas; t=1711676412; bh=X4cJKnenrfZTgGb/kZ3KW6CuMs8hpHbgixhBCMQjw4g=; h=From:To:Subject:In-reply-to:References:Date:From; b=OaACS+s6qBIONWSeuuLUnkYTVcLH523CWPopPJtJcK6lxEekXszREI7aOYYFbIhjF Pw/+7t/IjdD2DuQvYGCD8X7lM9V/8hrbXTdJ90POwUNwqJ5Q4SGVfvhBnTnHPC7Cwz rCzvuQnKncWZjx2BvU0bCIFih9aU9XKH3KCGkmVnud3On98+IDFBhXNMoaG/gfguH7 M477TDvsRNTU9Q0VpyPxd0SsBfsm7YKekfSbQjTruxTxbF5G2c9efrlpkrJdyzbc5n ksj2hvmj3nvFCLZPR8UuA9+SCCOzLUH3O9tddAqFOPboHLIlJX+SfangqPnDRQjAPt +nhyhkcxHX4oQ==
Received: from dyas (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48FE7A1922; Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:40:12 +1100 (AEDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <CAO42Z2yghAZdk_ZO8nzufkJXsgsJMhUNi_Fm+SpUUQ1b7GLCuQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADmxuPF1AReQCSY13HjqXE+8Jofy_uoo1wmnzs8+whG7Tdc+UQ@mail.gmail.com> <836E3A12-FAAF-4C19-91A1-322203645AAA@employees.org> <CADmxuPEBXYeTPrJqfPEGaxmUM75iKQx6kfCcpHHjxyekZy0xuQ@mail.gmail.com> <2DB6E450-9EE4-438A-9D3B-78DDFF0CA78F@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr0+ArFfn7uZddMAGpxYroSxw-u=cpti4mwp_7-yRBSRSA@mail.gmail.com> <CACMsEX_Can2Uc4dEvC+9B_zG3OuP0YwQnGr=4uQyrFcjjgLHjA@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2yghAZdk_ZO8nzufkJXsgsJMhUNi_Fm+SpUUQ1b7GLCuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> message dated "Thu, 28 Mar 2024 12:33:48 +1100."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:40:12 +1100
Message-ID: <551367.1711676412@dyas>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/BrS_T9nAs9wI0dgjR45zQ85ep30>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] Adoption call for draft-bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 07:05:58 -0000

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
    > However, for applications where the communications model is peer-to-peer,
    > or a mix of client/server and peer-to-peer, the application developer has
    > to implement RFC 8445 ICE using STUN and TURN for NAT traversal, incurring
    > additional development, debugging and testing costs.

There is an additional cost/burden: the developer has to make sure that there
*is* an ICE/STUN/TURN server available.   That's a cost that someone has to
pay for, and since it's on the public internet, one might have to deal with
DDoS attacks, while a simpler peer to peer system would not incur any such
cost.

    > This is why I say that NAT (of any type) imposes a default client (inside
    > NAT) /server (outside NAT) communications model at the IPv4 or IPv6
    > network

I call this the consumer/seller model.  It's what the incumbent phone companies like.
Vs the Citizen peer to peer model.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email