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

Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Sat, 15 October 2011 01:04 UTC

Return-Path: <gih@apnic.net>
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 58E3721F8CE9 for <shim6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RDNS_NONE=0.1, 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 z56clU9yj57B for <shim6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp.apnic.net (asmtp.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dc0:2001:11::199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B27321F8CE1 for <shim6@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.69] (unknown [12.185.65.154]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by asmtp.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A298BB66B3; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 11:03:58 +1000 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <4E988E19.9020603@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:03:45 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <76F5C665-EDB7-4EBE-B06E-926376ACB657@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>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Alberto_Garc=EDa?= <alberto@it.uc3m.es>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
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: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 01:04:07 -0000

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
>> |  > |
>> |  > |
>> |  > |
>> |  > |