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

james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> Thu, 16 November 2017 22:03 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@google.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 793C312944A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:03:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 Qqb-o74xaldo for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:03:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22a.google.com (mail-pf0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22a]) (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 E6147126DD9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:03:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id j28so355900pfk.8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:03:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=eJ0TZyszXw7wLYzktCjeBxD9ujgC6NyYuX6ihm5CSB0=; b=eVo3dLIBP+Gk/PDqp2rNNnFZqPLLn8p0Wgci7keV+Dg/ctpg9OWQah+tbtC/HMTEOc RTltVlw/LLb7jjGlWIMOqEjw/oCcTl3PTkHuJJCL81GNYOkKrbX91l7FsP62224hnK4d 9Fh1XiIg82jFErqATfAmUzXxErwat1FFWayW9b7dNOJz1mixThMREGL65CegSqOSgeph DsB0ndKhCaE8NcpLRl4vQmfurFf095LwU+afqi2R5hRYKHzXwk8DC4eaDHR4Xt7xd+i8 CDn2fNx8h8X/BSyng3q5qXOvFZk7tcK2qQ9KSnzYwJdehJTp2ElYFV/gnoRTfBoEPSM0 Jbtw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=eJ0TZyszXw7wLYzktCjeBxD9ujgC6NyYuX6ihm5CSB0=; b=nK9Mn5XGqVb5qh1CfNJs+BeCaTZ1/zA7lZaSqKvxdgAXsv0JQ7g/8r1Rfv/f/5Ygv2 0jArF1pKkl0Vo2oUtGKjq7a5hjJ/koxtMMum0Ew4rq90Q/X6BkFwyU8VECjbwWOyWYcO 7GYqTxwjNqLlvKcZERbYNFxb5QHcL+xtamar5I1/1xyGJHLd5URMvqi3+l8njFSar+uR NOpGaNcJPPwYNXdwJGzAdB26ulTOTRolz9cRimfSbbSD4zmHtI8SBsDVil9y24L/akCI 7qJ6X2xmEF/54pq8UyB9ukio3Qg5eYfS+xhmO3xyaaIPO9Yo/jZAgmb4nhnoKPttkbSh YYcQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX47rs4oz0B8B+sF0BjcG0dzEyrTp5rXexOTm4WBl73JM4LCFfVY v/sXL+X1XYOeqD/yQCtP3POhx/4UevM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMaYoSA3/tNA4qaqqA19QJD19yMRVt9ULuy81Y/Y2BnQYl88wormHqH9ndj7z2ImwfG2sYI7fw==
X-Received: by 10.99.109.73 with SMTP id i70mr3119571pgc.134.1510869788311; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:03:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2620::10e7:10:a5ca:6de1:c280:7c3f? ([2620:0:10e7:10:a5ca:6de1:c280:7c3f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c73sm5479709pfd.139.2017.11.16.14.03.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:03:07 -0800 (PST)
From: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Message-Id: <B54199E7-174D-4A83-85C2-9966769B2DD7@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D1306F5A-45B0-4E40-A6B3-59E579A8C62F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: PCP, and 6434bis (was Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:03:06 -0800
In-Reply-To: <21029.1510865502@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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> <21029.1510865502@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/T5zZ2EAAA2Hrs1mSm_sCssGOl_M>
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 22:03:10 -0000

On Nov 16, 2017, at 12:51, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>; wrote:
> 
> I think that we should mention PCP.
> I don't know whether to write MAY, SHOULD or MUST.
> Probably not MUST.

Given that discovering all the relevant PCP servers is potentially impossible without a DHCPv6 client, and those are not explicitly RECOMMENDED, I think the only reasonable option here is "MAY implement a PCP client” and not “SHOULD” or “MUST” to implement a PCP client.

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

The O flag can signal that RFC 7291 may be required to discover any additional PCP servers beyond the one that can be available at 2001:1::1.


--james woodyatt <jhw@google.com <mailto:jhw@google.com>>