IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: What flexibility do 6to4 NAT have with address formats?

Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com> Wed, 14 October 2009 01:09 UTC

Return-Path: <huitema@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C2C93A686B for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4wfqCtZRUXUk for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (smtp.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D70DD3A6765 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.178) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:09:54 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MLTW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.71.39) by TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.178) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.0.639.20; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:09:46 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([169.254.1.171]) by TK5EX14MLTW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.71.39]) with mapi; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:09:45 -0700
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: What flexibility do 6to4 NAT have with address formats?
Thread-Topic: What flexibility do 6to4 NAT have with address formats?
Thread-Index: AQHKTBLenI3gZ4LIvkKZSynuTjxdMZEErLGA//+QlmA=
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:09:45 +0000
Message-ID: <6B55F0F93C3E9D45AF283313B8D342BA211AA81A@TK5EX14MBXW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
References: <6B55F0F93C3E9D45AF283313B8D342BA211A8C1D@TK5EX14MBXW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <4AD51F5D.9070106@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AD51F5D.9070106@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: 6man 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:09:46 -0000

>> The second question regards the uniqueness of host
>> identifiers. Suppose we define the address used for stateless
>> translation as: 32 bit "provider" prefix, 32 bit IPv4
>> address, and a constant identifier, either 0 or the "checksum
>> neutrality" value, which is only a function of the provider
>> prefix. Suppose now that for some reason there are two "IPv4
>> addressed" hosts on the same link, e.g. because many servers
>> are located in the same server room. The two hosts will have
>> different addresses, in different 64 bit subnets, but they
>> will also have different host identifiers. Is that OK?
>
> Why wouldn't it be OK? I can't see why it's a question.
> The normal expectation is that different hosts have different
> IIDs so I am curious why this matters.

I just realize I made "typo". I meant to say " The two hosts will have
different addresses, in different 64 bit subnets, but they will also have 
the same host identifiers. Is that OK?

-- Christian Huitema

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email