Re: [shim6] draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-01

Alberto García <alberto@it.uc3m.es> Tue, 18 October 2011 07:36 UTC

Return-Path: <alberto@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: shim6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: shim6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BC2F21F8B2A for <shim6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 0hQAppb44Mkk for <shim6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24B5621F8B28 for <shim6@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:36:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from BOMBO (unknown [163.117.139.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3953C27C0E; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:36:24 +0200 (CEST)
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Alberto_Garc=C3=ADa?= <alberto@it.uc3m.es>
To: "'Brian E Carpenter'" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "'Geoff Huston'" <gih@apnic.net>
References: <20110901110629.557.88536.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E8CCE44.3070808@gmail.com> <00fb01cc875a$4500f9c0$cf02ed40$@it.uc3m.es> <4E939270.5070909@gmail.com> <004001cc8a8d$5de8a010$19b9e030$@it.uc3m.es> <4E988E19.9020603@gmail.com> <76F5C665-EDB7-4EBE-B06E-926376ACB657@apnic.net> <4E99031C.7040406@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E99031C.7040406@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:36:22 +0200
Message-ID: <012001cc8d68$a46eecf0$ed4cc6d0$@it.uc3m.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQF6MuyKnjxZ9u1YMfQAvTlLPOjHXgJ+sXlTAndN68oCUdlb4AE49CULAXSJ0g4C//X/7QIRWmqEla0e6TA=
Content-Language: es
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.8.0.1017-18456.003
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat@tools.ietf.org, 'shim6-wg' <shim6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [shim6] draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-01
X-BeenThere: shim6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SHIM6 Working Group Mailing List <shim6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/shim6>, <mailto:shim6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/shim6>
List-Post: <mailto:shim6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:shim6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shim6>, <mailto:shim6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:36:28 -0000

Hi,
I've just posted a new -'unloaded'- draft version (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-02.txt). I think now it should be ready to go forward.
Thank you for your comments.

Regards,
Alberto

|  -----Mensaje original-----
|  De: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com]
|  Enviado el: sábado, 15 de octubre de 2011 5:51
|  Para: Geoff Huston
|  CC: Alberto García; draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-
|  ipv6nat@tools.ietf.org; shim6-wg
|  Asunto: Re: [shim6] draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-01
|  
|  Geoff, I think you're right, even though I share the animosity.
|  
|  Regards
|     Brian Carpenter
|  
|  On 2011-10-15 14:03, Geoff Huston wrote:
|  > Frankly I think it better not to use such loaded terms in an RFC
|  >
|  > if you dropped "Despite...connectivity," from the document would it
|  > really change anything?
|  >
|  > regards,
|  >
|  >    Geoff
|  >
|  > On 15/10/2011, at 6:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
|  >
|  >> Yes, thanks. It's better to point to the less harmful solution than
|  >> to imply NAPTv6.
|  >>
|  >> Regards
|  >>   Brian
|  >>
|  >> On 2011-10-15 05:21, Alberto García wrote:
|  >>> Hi Brian,
|  >>>
|  >>> [...]
|  >>> |  > - I've added a new subsection named 'Shim6 and IPv6 NAT' after
|  >>> | the  > firewall section. In short, IPv6 NATs may allow
|  >>> | communicating with the  > ULID pair (with the initial locators),
|  >>> | but communication will break  > with some cases in which locators
|  are changed.
|  >>> |
|  >>> |
|  >>> |  Please please change this to refer to *prefix* translation and RFC
|  6296.
|  >>> |  Although that RFC is only Experimental, the idea is to show that
|  >>> | the prefix  translation (not NAPT) is all we need for IPv6.
|  >>>
|  >>> Sure. Do you think it would be enough to change the first sentence of
|  the 'Shim6 and IPv6 NAT' section to include a reference to RFC 6296, as
|  follows?:
|  >>>
|  >>>  "Despite the animosity of the technical community against IPv6 NATs
|  >>>   because of disrupting end-to-end connectivity, address translation
|  >>>   techniques such as Network Prefix Translation [RFC6296] may be used
|  >>>   until workable solutions to avoid renumbering or facilitate
|  >>>   multihoming are developed [RFC5902].  We now consider the impact
|  of
|  >>>   IPv6 NATs in Shim6 operation."
|  >>>
|  >>> Regards,
|  >>> Alberto
|  >>>
|  >>>
|  >>> |
|  >>> |  Regards
|  >>> |     Brian
|  >>> |
|  >>> |  > Since there are many changes, I have generated a new version of
|  >>> | the
|  >>> |  draft:
|  >>> |  >
|  >>> | https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-garcia-shim6-applicability/
|  >>> |  >
|  >>> |  > What do you think?
|  >>> |  >
|  >>> |  > Thanks,
|  >>> |  > Alberto
|  >>> |  >
|  >>> |  > |
|  >>> |  > |  In any case I support this draft going forward to the AD quite
|  soon.
|  >>> |  > |
|  >>> |  > |  Regards
|  >>> |  > |     Brian Carpenter
|  >>> |  > |
|  >>> |  > |
|  >>> |  > |
|  >>> |  > |
|  >