[pcp] #64: Teemu's comments on draft-ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64-02
"pcp issue tracker" <trac@tools.ietf.org> Fri, 31 May 2013 23:19 UTC
Return-Path: <trac@tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4802B21F88D8 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2013 16:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.706
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.706 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.964, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_PROFIT1=3.858, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3roF+LOIoNZT for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 May 2013 16:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 183B721F848E for <pcp@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 May 2013 16:07:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44457 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <trac@tools.ietf.org>) id 1UiYPg-0001gZ-2I; Sat, 01 Jun 2013 01:07:12 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: pcp issue tracker <trac@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
To: draft-ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64@tools.ietf.org, teemu.savolainen@nokia.com
X-Trac-Project: pcp
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 23:07:12 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/pcp/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/trac/ticket/64
Message-ID: <064.8793b93d389eea6b51bc55b5712fe096@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 64
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64@tools.ietf.org, teemu.savolainen@nokia.com, pcp@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac@tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Resent-To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Resent-Message-Id: <20130531230756.183B721F848E@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 16:07:53 -0700
Resent-From: trac@tools.ietf.org
Cc: pcp@ietf.org
Subject: [pcp] #64: Teemu's comments on draft-ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64-02
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp>
List-Post: <mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 23:19:43 -0000
#64: Teemu's comments on draft-ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64-02 I read through most of the draft. I am not that expert in PCP so my focus is on discovery in general. The Introduction has a justification text:"This extension is required to help establishing communications between IPv6-only hosts and remote IPv4-only hosts.", which is not exactly correct, as we already have one solution for that problem: draft-ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic. The IESG approval email for heuristic-draft had text: - Working Group Summary The document specifies a heuristic that is not perfect and so some points were rough, but the constraint for this document was to operate without changes to code (only configuration) in existing networks. Given that constraint, there was strong consensus. Relaxing the constraint would allow one to do better, and that is the focus of a draft recently submitted to the PCP WG. - Furthermore, draft-ietf-behave-nat64-learn-analysis-03.txt (RFC Editor's queue, now cleared due resolution of MISSREF) analyses various solutions that we had on the table at March 2012. In particular the learn-analysis talks about application layer protocols (such as STUN) in section 5.8, but also lists Issues (from #1 to #5). I think this PCP solution solves the issues, BUT with additional box on the network (PCP). All in all, I think this document should reference to heuristic as existing solution and learn-analysis as discussion paper of the problem, and say that PCP solution solves the Issues (please double check that it does), but also adds the benefits that come with explicit provisioning tool - but with a cost of requiring said provisioning tool (PCP). Actually, the reference to analysis document could be at section 3.1 that lists the Issues listed in learn-analysis this PCP solution solves (and what more is solved). The "stale Pref64::/n" is the same as Issue #4 in learn analysis? The 3.2 could reference to learn-analysis section 4 as well, as I think there is overlap? Now that you have explicit tool for provisioning Pref64::/n, why do you not provision also the suffix introduced in RFC6052? Wouldn't that make this more future proof? The format shown in 4.1 could have variable length suffix field. In fact, having suffix included would allow *fixed length* 128 bit field-length, which might be optimized to be 96 bit field (128-32, with first bits for prefix and remaining for suffix - dropping bits for IPv4). It seems this solution does not solve the destination-dependent Pref64::/n "problem" discussed in heuristic-discovery section "5.1. Mapping of IPv4 Address Ranges to IPv6 Prefixes" ? If so, it should be mentioned that this is not solved/supported. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-pcp- teemu.savolainen@nokia.com | nat64-prefix64@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: nat64-prefix64 | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/trac/ticket/64> pcp <http://tools.ietf.org/pcp/>
- [pcp] #64: Teemu's comments on draft-ietf-pcp-nat… pcp issue tracker
- Re: [pcp] #64: Teemu's comments on draft-ietf-pcp… pcp issue tracker
- Re: [pcp] #64: Teemu's comments on draft-ietf-pcp… teemu.savolainen