IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Erik Kline <ek@loon.com> Tue, 02 July 2019 00:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ek@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 982D8120691 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.248
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=loon.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 XTHsL3soj4iW for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2e.google.com (mail-io1-xd2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2e]) (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 882D21201AA for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2e.google.com with SMTP id k20so6756483ios.10 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 17:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=loon.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=3hppfH32NiiBkdXKjuZUnkFDECEh+BhXQ31JZc5NjjE=; b=ehu/fcjk8M22eFmpk0CQi5azZHyYXRiN5qRiiWol/kgVEi7s5Jx4v6ckrRl0OZA33V 3629pNEH5vH8i6RRvFbzIVxlJFoVwBHNaktCbRkRbmfsHZGHZ88/ZdtSCU7uVT2zNikO p9tLP6ENJmH6TembqIbZ3kMa6d0tdiPUnyX8s=
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:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3hppfH32NiiBkdXKjuZUnkFDECEh+BhXQ31JZc5NjjE=; b=OAk8+7c+TWb0mdMS/0t+RdF7Q6vSG4q7tLwQ5LylS8Hp+LtWVd4/NV1S+X2yTQ9fNP H5fUNPl5yewzS6Jkz75IUJHQItqSENRLKku5ljDLoa6TSYYfCmyCu8gxsByFoM/SESKk 1I/+ngCQlGNHYLQiCjYG+qkeVG6yhPavM5G24pSnSt98MkchrAfMxXnTleTEyeBs9ObF 0MGqNgd1OdPMfkmN9KbaAg0vMnXeNq+ZEXQS2Eyifh3jjJrj7uCTL9WW0GJwpxiRNlcq QPeCHtGfRLkoMyEaftsjaUAvUGfys+6kjglnxYQpaHCg9opCjvhKEP8IJMuGNtmw4PUl b4Zw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWsloc81TxzsVcCpjkY6pnmNRZ+ET90YQgsvf4u/l44EAREWB4/ WjgrKzomNs6Xkce8uMTeO06qa/k30Zie4iVIvzFQMA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxLqUKPs7VYKHaeWFvTkHy3YNpHhuBAk/P+A6B2r2aM44o8byEQzVsdYJDXknw0YvkUNo+byP6jsj1aKr4l3tA=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:e615:: with SMTP id g21mr7900921ioh.178.1562028496437; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 17:48:16 -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> <6EC0FA5C-9B87-46A5-BD2D-93E2E2C85291@isc.org> <4632.1561748149@localhost> <7F90899E-71DF-46BB-A2AB-CE0E8274C585@isc.org> <25567.1561758875@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <25567.1561758875@localhost>
Reply-To: ek@loon.com
From: Erik Kline <ek@loon.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 17:48:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAedzxqy5U5g23xej6TYG-Zu-VWeoHfMcdKYE4cOBTg_0XwtWg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: NAT64 in RA, draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a92614058ca819d9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/VUu4B5gyZMwQ5ZSG7v3G34gQc3g>
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: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 00:48:28 -0000

On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 14:54, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

>
> Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>     > Except it DOES NOT depend on search lists. The name is absolute. I
> was
>     > pointing out to Jen why depending on a search list was a bad idea.
>
> To clarify, I think there are two ideas:
>
> 1) reserving _dns64, + search list to get APL
> 2) sending the absolute name to get APL.
>
> I understand you are proposing (2), and I'm thanking you for clarifying
> that.
>

Am I right in reading that https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3123 is
Experimental?  Did another doc change the status of APL RRs?

I like APL RRs, but if we want a standards track type RA option, should
APLs get a bump in status first (purely for the lie-flat seats, of course)?

--
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email