IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Sat, 29 June 2019 00:38 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@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 ED95E120700 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:38:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] 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 madyjWVovX5b for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x441.google.com (mail-wr1-x441.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::441]) (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 6121C12095E for <6man@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x441.google.com with SMTP id p11so7915858wre.7 for <6man@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2sMrCAGYtTOUN5xpkriXOTFgil2esbrVf0FWVmYaSwo=; b=n6EuIw/REAoumUV0/Sbj2VLuxCY38ksVFnDch7eyfTTkonbSJZHUzfxzphlVTI0qEN s1DChP8K33KoXoL9L7s6YBpiz+d895Zld+tgPsRmsiUzvrslWOP1aqpdFPQGDyVObX2e CeE+LjciQKoUv4QAGz6K/8/w2C2ttvOT9EcWvJLJbOttf0ATWaKnhDo0DBRreANqGFu4 MMI7cPyxZi9QsJnE5W7ynctTn+T86N5raSZxSq2lruyBaITzHhqU7zR61fazLXTbA3lA Cw9WhRwgVJksu0rSOn6rf+nlg7X8UhEMDkcW7n0yVc1Z6dj+befjxJTEo/s2DWd7/+72 dMQA==
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=2sMrCAGYtTOUN5xpkriXOTFgil2esbrVf0FWVmYaSwo=; b=PiVwMj5RZqb6txS6/ifsabdx/KbVd+LxZTRlXazdlIRDPEbKEZrXGoW2/VK9V72yor w0edCBaGdK1lUV/DzU7GtRX9/8eYCriwB8gI2Yw+aPuYY5e3u1wqWTUUrAjFbvrB2XYA wknMhjO5byusOuLHq0TkB08vyz8vnAq3LsxV/rYRrE6IugKwDdgwtMJNTrcN/bt98l0k HbHY5hUY12OsRE+eWtxd2pbY31TkcCLGEPxerUpFobiTOywFP+5xZw+4iMujfO0VM8b7 S4tMeAu6rX1JwR/8uCdlT6w1RtjxAbCzCuEM7V8R+lmC5JxwxJcP/6RIniJ/qHksMhcK MMwA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUQBSHGCASj6gUx2RbUr4g8mDvhxgiyJEZxRnioK4g/DWjafgIg +C9mNn3hMNAOsve75AtwWlfLJdvP0HTqXUNO9CQuoQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy65eYFfshenMlF4i2EDLvjYWZtUriqq1Y2Wxlmv16+9h+yeJpVQmeEF+p4uwKhJ4YD73rkYcS06Gthn17+h4M=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4681:: with SMTP id u1mr9340572wrq.102.1561768714544; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:38:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <12187.1558972629@localhost> <D3C7EB41-02E8-48D6-9335-26A041FD64C2@isc.org> <00C00FE5-C7CD-4B99-A2C9-CCBFCB1E4850@isc.org> <CAFU7BASfJ4YS6xBzK8hNJRSMnFZmdn3VE5A=sPCC3JqRa8SQEQ@mail.gmail.com> <EC63A89D-26CD-4093-8814-4461B6D3D327@isc.org> <CAFU7BASsAwitEc==Zj6qT4izy-tFosg23DHXFVVzOixidEfMFA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3jDTS25ERGZYDDM9yRRTxEfY4Ltcd-QgFNor6ze2G7xA@mail.gmail.com> <6053.1561748461@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <6053.1561748461@localhost>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 09:38:21 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr0sKOc-yhWosq6LCHRoufOeTWyKEge9w8WeQabQYsfgyA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: NAT64 in RA, draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000741be9058c6b9d19"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/UpreuNkFos8zD_3SUBhfxM6lq8g>
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: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 00:38:38 -0000

On Sat, 29 Jun 2019, 04:01 Michael Richardson, <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

>     > As a co-author, I don't see a real operational need for this at the
> moment.
>     > Why is this not something that we can define later on in its own
> draft,
>     > once we get more support for it and consensus that it is a useful
> thing to
>     > do?
>
> I'm not okay with this: I'd really like to be able to specify this in an
> RFP.
> I'm okay with the mechanism being optional to support.
>

That was not my point. My point was: why does this functionality need to be
in this option? Why does it need to be in this draft? For example - why
can't you and Mark submit a separate draft - at your earliest convenience -
defining a new RA option to do this?

Particularly given that you're saying this would be optional to implement,
it seems natural to have two different options.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email