IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Snac] where/how to document NAT64 (and DNS64)?

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 25 October 2022 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: snac@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: snac@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92169C1522C3 for <snac@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 06:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w2XacmvSaqbc for <snac@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 06:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x732.google.com (mail-qk1-x732.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::732]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAD89C1522AA for <snac@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 06:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x732.google.com with SMTP id a5so8040495qkl.6 for <snac@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 06:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ktcO6q4nhj7eHegUx84k2Uhvq6taqqDpiBzTbK84evo=; b=VSzVYjROUh2HWsefpBNHT386mPowx6wMM8Jp1mdegXUHl30d3xlyFpci9xMt38W4bM gIAmxpoiXU7TwqvJnttFNTb9elMQcq52C4BqLdSuqochO6D4UwAihpGGjQ8EMNj43VuU qhz5SKX+sOrt8NNLjCEHLmw05aFmceU/ww46pO1CQniC/CYEFHsWLyLoTVtd+vwQwlAh lv1kj1XdWy/GWkm9c/cE7FLgR/hh+1hbjJnGInLMPptgKR9ED506C0PWMyFFRlkc89N/ YYFi7gbCb0qr1lDbGKCoMKpwTXt2zq52vmjOm7vzfGlAPQg7w39yysZPlJB1OZcadJTq ch7A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=ktcO6q4nhj7eHegUx84k2Uhvq6taqqDpiBzTbK84evo=; b=UoJgXYY5ZSlrg5MvyWFjzdXkqr3pA/L+JZUailgYR3MPVOPibc4+gRpvtSTL7oD2n3 d5eX4nN1PxSSEdvqAxLKCbZ2OtXG0h1DrQTwpkARrlnpPU5NI8SGh8WXM5P6L3ewk3Qg IzkdPmEvkAqz7sWVNB5zyUQ7Ry+BOeRsECGef0/aEAGcAQIiwfdUTbLpEOLIgWKP5tmF pihsza/OF34nIaP0W+BQBfZHxeE61+qbBq9mPYj25fcaoEOJWalcbKquKQ3Z0yC85dh0 10jUfMW8ufyKk/IYpqkbklQOqxcKwQe3mIzPOGc9tYKcZXQgvDzZkHGbsIV5hC9w+MF4 fxIA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf0QfC6BtzniGquL8JogSE4ih5W3O9FikB+r79d/h8JHUSZleWJa Eee97Xf9Mmf7vzYvMzaMOFjyNDelSRshnhRhDL8hqYDFThnGLtRt5hk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM4k2uEAPlscNrnv3UJrW69VxrkwaH4LNZdUsXvjxGGzjbUpEqcVFu4rcuxsV63YQTUrereu+fPZua1xeE1rTn0=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:46a0:b0:6ee:afc7:d9dc with SMTP id bq32-20020a05620a46a000b006eeafc7d9dcmr25745146qkb.189.1666705562857; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 06:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPt1N1mRS8mVcrv-HHLrHgbgvhDWW_BDq0PqzkPT8smUnG+_SQ@mail.gmail.com> <87czam88dj.wl-jch@irif.fr> <CAPt1N1nZdiCk5FGekiSXdmjd7jTU-Wfx1S9tubEV2xWPbmO3tQ@mail.gmail.com> <941809.1666528999@dyas> <CAPt1N1=urg_bNOmz64if_1p5tangzSfKWpB+o198B8dc=-+43g@mail.gmail.com> <966230.1666535849@dyas> <CAPt1N1m_qh9Es8jJDrPXN=CzH2Gd0sE2YGTo5y6dpHvoDTqzpg@mail.gmail.com> <874jvuzgiy.wl-jch@irif.fr> <CAPt1N1=84JnaC4=VHHMANVM_b3GNTixKwZdcjpvO4k8E_z5aUw@mail.gmail.com> <994282.1666543114@dyas> <87a65ki522.wl-jch@irif.fr> <1619749.1666701945@dyas>
In-Reply-To: <1619749.1666701945@dyas>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 15:45:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1mB4XBCCiasXPP2v4=cyGdhtGVfCjxpZHkytSWVEQ_qWw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>, snac@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000050b2a05ebdc21fb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/snac/i5gVW7uVJgyc2YWa-gHqGO8o_Eo>
Subject: Re: [Snac] where/how to document NAT64 (and DNS64)?
X-BeenThere: snac@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discussing problems relating to the automatic connection of stub networks to existing infrastructure networks. " <snac.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/snac>, <mailto:snac-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/snac/>
List-Post: <mailto:snac@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:snac-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/snac>, <mailto:snac-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 13:46:07 -0000

DHCP does not implicitly assert a default route. Certainly the DHCP server
is not assumed to be a router (it might not even be on the same link as the
client, after all!). So in order for DHCPv4 to indicate a default route,
the server has to include a router option. If it doesn't, then there's no
default route.

However, DHCP might provide a default route even when there is no uplink.
There's not much we can do about this. A network with no uplink isn't going
to be able to reach the Internet anyway, so whether we offer NAT64 or not,
it won't work, but also won't cause harm, since we are not replacing a
working service with a broken service.

On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 2:45 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

>
> Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> wrote:
>     >> c) is there a way to detect if there even is an IPv4 uplink?
> DHCPv4 has this
>     >> fault that it can't not announce a default route.
>
>     > Why do you have DHCPv4 in the first place if you have no IPv4 uplink?
>     > (There's also draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag, but it's expired.)
>
> Because, historically, if you have no DHCPv4, then you have no local
> connectivity.
> ipv6only flag doesn't really help, I think.
> It's not that there is no IPv4, it's that there is no default route.
>
>     >> Do we even care here?
>
>     > It gives you early failure.  It reduces Happy Eyeballs traffic.  It
>     > reduces the amount of state at the stub router.
>
> I agree that those are good reasons in general.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
> --
> Snac mailing list
> Snac@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/snac
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email