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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 15 October 2011 03:51 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 6364921F87F0 for <shim6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.263
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.263 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.336, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-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 vhZIg4xmqfMw for <shim6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:51:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9986C21F877F for <shim6@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:51:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkas6 with SMTP id s6so1061968bka.31 for <shim6@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:51:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8KN7tXzowCkv1/rzlu+mDT1dZbc4hbaf8yAVXZchtL4=; b=BIi+Ch769MHSywv0/Ysiv/z8LZb6Di3H9qRsCRzGBj8dE6hg6I7zmXwru3XKFV5G4u wMUbvI3ZuvWl6sjf4TZ/G1rPmmFHsRFpEDM2G/BkqT8tHkRI+jjRdkMW39NpyKe3zA1U +3kZ5mmFLXhoqZJ7oJeqsWdelOyDIDzLj2h3g=
Received: by 10.223.6.25 with SMTP id 25mr8124624fax.14.1318650661607; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:51:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.1.1.4] ([121.98.251.219]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b10sm7639051fam.1.2011.10.14.20.50.57 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E99031C.7040406@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 16:50:52 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 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>
In-Reply-To: <76F5C665-EDB7-4EBE-B06E-926376ACB657@apnic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 03:51:03 -0000

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