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

[Alberto García <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]]
|  Enviado el: sábado, 15 de octubre de 2011 5:51
|  Para: Geoff Huston
|  CC: Alberto García; draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-
|  [e-mail]; 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
|  >>> |  > |
|  >>> |  > |
|  >>> |  > |
|  >>> |  > |
|  >