Re: PCP, and 6434bis (was Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 16 November 2017 20:51 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 A42C8129407 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:51:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 GvwBZ5gKhne8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:51:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3058C129431 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:51:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 178EE20091 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 15:53:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F064E82639 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 15:51:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: PCP, and 6434bis (was Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?)
In-Reply-To: <A89E7192-0FD4-4750-8745-147AFCC364DC@jisc.ac.uk>
References: <m1eEGbJ-0000EhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <D43E103C-27B8-48CF-B801-ACCF9B42533E@employees.org> <m1eEHPS-0000FyC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <59B0BEC0-D791-4D75-906C-84C5E423291B@employees.org> <m1eEIGX-0000FjC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <73231F8D-498E-4C77-8DA8-044365368FC9@isc.org> <CAKD1Yr1aFwF_qZVp5HbRbKzcOGqn==MRe_ewaA8Qc8t3+CVu_Q@mail.gmail.com> <44A862B7-7182-4B3A-B46E-73065FC4D852@isc.org> <D42D8D7A-6D19-4862-9BB3-4913058A83B6@employees.org> <CAFU7BARCLq9eznccEtkdnKPAtKNT7Mf1bW0uZByPvxtiSrv6EQ@mail.gmail.com> <183A8772-6FEF-43BD-97F9-DD4A2E21DB90@google.com> <5D9D33A8-88F0-4758-84FA-BCB364E8013F@employees.org> <16B61573-E233-40ED-8A22-CD145EBB8F98@google.com> <A89E7192-0FD4-4750-8745-147AFCC364DC@jisc.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7-RC3; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 15:51:42 -0500
Message-ID: <21029.1510865502@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Q962GHSVt7rbaZhF3nCUyH_m-9c>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 16 Nov 2017 20:51:46 -0000

Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>; wrote:
    > And PCP is still needed to negotiate firewall holes in a pure IPv6
    > scenario, isn’t it?  Assuming the host with PCP is behind Simple
    > Security.

    > A question: is this something we should conducer for RFC6434-bis, or
    > should we be silent on PCP?

I think that we should mention PCP.
I don't know whether to write MAY, SHOULD or MUST.
Probably not MUST.

BTW: Is there any RA option to signal that PCP might be needed?


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