Re: NAT64 in RA, draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64

Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> Thu, 27 June 2019 10:54 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 662A4120240 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 03:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
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 oFd8qs9wwpas for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 03:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82f.google.com (mail-qt1-x82f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82f]) (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 E9B4912009E for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 03:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82f.google.com with SMTP id m29so1929025qtu.1 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 03:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
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; bh=vAKVtU/pknfQaTGiGHVVYTbIbASe06/yroH/6Sx8isI=; b=OZAZVjJoQamN77N2rWHb4bPqjUCX6tXslVJDK7BOuw17aIhLDgRWo7Z4olni37mmui JaUhjy3vknHHpTr9vSQPG+lrXibMP+ssytnm1B0RVbufgyZgoN6tMbTD+/3iGDBETPQY zrA27PhKWiSt+8FL1xnG+xCIDU+x9AxJg8hl5Po0QX8+JqTfjlqP4OaSA3oGqzMn4eX/ +R9J89O/vTxLLuUGWZOBcfdsr50yu9pLMqnNlECJuKpv4uUSAvqlcawcZ7zLg5EGXVmA rXLiLv3jYoEJ9SGYBxyf9CoI3l4GCWkaVWNa2KmwclDHr3Iz0RhrLfQGmTDa7tw9EOpE Gz6A==
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; bh=vAKVtU/pknfQaTGiGHVVYTbIbASe06/yroH/6Sx8isI=; b=MfJMcgXT15bic2SLxT+MzDHopWA3zXfRSpl2Xruy/8dPyutUaCDoJsOsU95amub3oP SpTBPgYqjVPbrfkxvctYYWTvZWwIS0ILldOVw8nqxVh8D0azShG47WQ6jIZo9kR6ZCLx XWtBwUjEAp/NIeVyXcRRBpdBONt3YuPKeQFrvJKeDLN2NoPrudMCqpIIS2hR8t9A6G3r jk4xagUTcaE6K/BlyULwg8ZNA9a5MUCrfR6EQn9VfM/Jt2kDRZ1JRVD/lOrxXZyQZF/K lmxv4W8Y6I6uZ/Fap0AKqKbxH3Sp9YgYi1IW5gbTosWP0jHKKPoyMSVFhx9Y06L1rGoj UJhA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXowccvGY80f8tYZjHwIpHCaxdHNYAMLg3lLrtkOtfmAUZhO9nr rD7MXNAVbf6vBxfmgPMOHw6dSkzJO3RrvKA9P+2Iww==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwXpJWhlwXKEq1DHxurI+DwtMtEzs2hapz6xfsziZHDYJ6lM94Gay520zBykTJP6EVJJ7sXU8kfQ6BZNqdZn9c=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:2e59:: with SMTP id s25mr2441757qta.94.1561632856969; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 03:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <12187.1558972629@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <12187.1558972629@localhost>
From: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 20:54:05 +1000
Message-ID: <CAFU7BATF+nO4c-zRbuS1dND7Tf26FRzkYoFG0eWtYiKCu=sj-A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: NAT64 in RA, draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: 6man@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Q1o-qvtoBWF4RdYQKNdynS1ZiZg>
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: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 10:54:20 -0000

Hi Michael,

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:57 AM Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> The document says:
>
>    In a network that provides both IPv4 and NAT64, it may be desirable
>    for certain IPv4 addresses not to be translated.  An example might be
>    private address ranges that are local to the network and should not
>    be reached through the NAT64.  This type of configuration cannot be
>    conveyed to hosts using this option, or through other NAT64 prefix
>    provisioning mechanisms such as [RFC7050] or [RFC7225].  This problem
>    does not apply in IPv6-only networks, because in such networks, the
>    host does not have an IPv4 address and cannot reach any IPv4
>    destinations without the NAT64.
>
> And I guess I disagree with this in a subtle way, which Section 7
> (multihoming) tries to deal with.   Maybe you could write:
>
>    In a provisioning domain that provides both IPv4 and NAT64, it may be desirable
>    for certain IPv4 addresses not to be translated.  An example might be
>    private address ranges that are local to the provisioning domain and should not
>    be reached through the NAT64.  This type of configuration cannot be
>    conveyed to hosts using this option, or through other NAT64 prefix
>    provisioning mechanisms such as [RFC7050] or [RFC7225].  This problem
>    does not apply to hosts that are provisioned in IPv6-only networks,
>    because in such networks, the host does not have an IPv4 address and
>    cannot reach any IPv4 destinations without the NAT64.
>    Section 7 deals with the multihoming sitution more.

Thanks for the suggestion! I guess you are right, the "dual-stack +
NAT64" scenario is scoped to a PVD.
I'll update the section.

> The slides had some optional stuff which I think is gone from the document.

Quote the opposite, it has not been added there yet - we wanted to
discuss the options during the IETF104 and I'm incorporating
the feedback to the -01 version right now.

-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry