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

Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> Fri, 17 November 2017 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <tim.chown@jisc.ac.uk>
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 14312128B38 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 08:12:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.32
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.32 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=jisc.ac.uk
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 WRyzrRvFhEuc for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 08:12:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eu-smtp-delivery-189.mimecast.com (eu-smtp-delivery-189.mimecast.com [146.101.78.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D16FE1243FE for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 08:12:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jisc.ac.uk; s=mimecast20170213; t=1510935145; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references; bh=Rut6A+fltWzvQV0kbeOoNnUPxzRkNy4LeaCIAknxT+s=; b=FR7ZMfiblY4Z+fNk9oFOBAI1FPIUPZSnVvls/LOceAouobRBnKuHRGaH3yNH+LgzNhPpfitnRPhdkNYbDPXLL1HUeK+MWOyooQ40SfNsWT/7QysSdkLkuQNPxByXpY4OFjOh4WIT81UDAU5+Gg8Pnf4LD/ZS913z51pI/iXWFco=
Received: from EUR03-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-ve1eur03lp0144.outbound.protection.outlook.com [213.199.154.144]) (Using TLS) by eu-smtp-1.mimecast.com with ESMTP id uk-mta-93-WGnoSdRHPdmhu5COV8BPHA-1; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 16:12:20 +0000
Received: from AM3PR07MB1140.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.163.188.14) by AM3PR07MB1139.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.163.188.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.260.2; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 16:12:17 +0000
Received: from AM3PR07MB1140.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d9b7:5aa5:5084:74c2]) by AM3PR07MB1140.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d9b7:5aa5:5084:74c2%13]) with mapi id 15.20.0260.001; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 16:12:17 +0000
From: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
CC: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: PCP, and 6434bis (was Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?)
Thread-Topic: PCP, and 6434bis (was Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?)
Thread-Index: AQHTXsCEK1gNvYa+mkyDyUX+Qr6diqMXe+gAgAAT8wCAATBOgA==
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 16:12:17 +0000
Message-ID: <EDDBD4B3-744F-4DFE-8FBF-62D7482CF7D4@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> <21029.1510865502@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <B54199E7-174D-4A83-85C2-9966769B2DD7@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <B54199E7-174D-4A83-85C2-9966769B2DD7@google.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.4.7)
x-originating-ip: [2001:a88:d510:1101:291b:568f:8b2c:9a0]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM3PR07MB1139; 20:s6kCKzqgDJBsyVIQQj0w1Wch9A0d8MOakPv1KCTsfyk3D4JleXESkRUJZ8p10VE6SmuUOYOVBo/w/IaDT8v4i6wRiZ4qEgURUGRf8xT6NuUQO/Far7Q/9INidPEcZRpWCEe6TBU400WfxVX4JJB4sXdqY+q6NUbGe78mLNwI9qM=
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 3c3cc2ac-ab83-4246-0d77-08d52dd5f91f
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(4534020)(4602075)(4627115)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603199); SRVR:AM3PR07MB1139;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM3PR07MB1139:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM3PR07MB1139C7401A12EFE96E2E1436D62F0@AM3PR07MB1139.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(211936372134217)(153496737603132);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(6040450)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(93006095)(93001095)(100000703101)(100105400095)(3002001)(3231022)(920507027)(10201501046)(6041248)(20161123558100)(201703131423075)(201702281529075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123562025)(20161123564025)(20161123555025)(20161123560025)(6072148)(201708071742011)(100000704101)(100105200095)(100000705101)(100105500095); SRVR:AM3PR07MB1139; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095); SRVR:AM3PR07MB1139;
x-forefront-prvs: 049486C505
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(376002)(346002)(189002)(24454002)(51444003)(199003)(83716003)(53936002)(54906003)(6246003)(316002)(6306002)(2900100001)(25786009)(6512007)(786003)(57306001)(105586002)(106356001)(5660300001)(2950100002)(42882006)(50226002)(6916009)(8936002)(101416001)(93886005)(74482002)(76176999)(50986999)(97736004)(82746002)(102836003)(6116002)(33656002)(2906002)(189998001)(229853002)(3660700001)(3280700002)(99286004)(966005)(72206003)(68736007)(86362001)(14454004)(305945005)(7736002)(36756003)(5250100002)(34040400001)(8676002)(4326008)(53546010)(6436002)(6486002)(6506006)(81156014)(81166006)(478600001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM3PR07MB1139; H:AM3PR07MB1140.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-ID: <7E7C75C6CF7F874FAD880F0FC8CA4019@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: jisc.ac.uk
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 3c3cc2ac-ab83-4246-0d77-08d52dd5f91f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 17 Nov 2017 16:12:17.2857 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 48f9394d-8a14-4d27-82a6-f35f12361205
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM3PR07MB1139
X-MC-Unique: WGnoSdRHPdmhu5COV8BPHA-1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/eporeHin5yImJ-NNPdX6z24a9dA>
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: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 16:12:31 -0000

Hi,

> On 16 Nov 2017, at 22:03, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>; wrote:
> 
> 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.

Yes, if we were to add something, I agree from comments made that MAY is the strongest we should use. 

But as you say, with lack of support in common OSes, it’s somewhat moot at present.  

Tim

>> 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>;
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------