Re: [Softwires] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-01

Cb B <cb.list6@gmail.com> Fri, 04 April 2014 13:34 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGR5k1TzrfGm9VuxE4qu3SG7_CDjRLhLWYWB9ojtU1G1hQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD6AjGTaDen01RWU9Eaha70ah9F2fGCx-xnO8GWqbJ7L-1gRpQ@mail.gmail.com> <852615d6f8d742a095d2701496c62275@BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAD6AjGR5k1TzrfGm9VuxE4qu3SG7_CDjRLhLWYWB9ojtU1G1hQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 06:34:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGR_z_5GtKRUkaH-rwpV1oeCP52Vg+PHdPwGFqzbciEcxg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Cb B <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c241143e790304f63794ce"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/40_0Tr9b2EkdhRGa5Y1U10RFOsM
Cc: softwires@ietf.org, v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-01
Precedence: list

Hello folks,

No follow-up in a week. I assume the below explanation and exisiting text
are ok.

To restate, this I-D simply generalizes the scope of 192.0.0.0/29.  There
is no guidance on how specific addresses may be used. It is assumed the
deploying party will not cause a conflict on the host by assiging the same
address to the host multipls times.... as that is a general ip
configuration rule.

I will ask v6ops to accept this i-d and direct them to this thread to see
the softwire view.

CB

On Mar 29, 2014 4:59 AM, "Cb B" <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Softwires [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cb B
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 10:58 AM
> >> To: softwires@ietf.org
> >> Subject: [Softwires] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-01
> >>
> >> Hi Softwires,
> >>
> >> Ales presented draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-01 in softwires at the last
IETF
> >> meeting.
> >>
> >> I am attempting to have this I-D adopted by v6ops, but v6ops requested
> >> feedback from softwires first.
> >>
> >> Pertaining to the minutes, i would like to address some topics to make
sure it
> >> is ok  for v6ops to move forward with adoption
> >>
> >>
https://tools.ietf.org/wg/softwire/minutes?item=minutes-89-softwire.html
> >>
> >> The addresses, both in DS-lite and 464xlat, never appears on the wire
so
> >> there is no chance of overlap or collision.
> >
> > Disagree, that conclusion doesn't follow (and in my experience it's
wrong).
> > Overlap/collision happens when there are two interfaces on the same host
> > (even if they're not in use simultaneously).   The collisions can affect
> > the routing table (if the host implements in such a way), ACLs like in
> > host firewall policies and such, and various application-layer uses.
> >
>
> Ah, i see your point.  If the host is itself both a B4 and a CLAT at
> the same time, then this collision may occur within the host, not on
> the wire.
>
> > It's fine to specify use as the default range (e.g. for 464xlat or
DS-lite) but
> > important to never constrain it to only that range, assuming the range
is made
> > non-DS-lite specific.
> >
> > -Dave
>
> Is there such a constraint that would cause a problem?
>
> Looking at RFC6333 and draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip, i see that RFC6333
> says the B4 SHOULD use 192.0.0.2.  To a rational person, a good reason
> to not use  192.0.0.2 is that it is in use for a CLAT interface on the
> same host, which fits with the SHOULD wording.
>
> Is there some text that you could suggest that may clarify this
> situation in draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip or is it ok for v6ops to adopt
> as-is?  As it stands, the I-D simply says that 192.0.0.0/29 will be
> generalized without making any further statements how addresses may be
> used within that range.
>
> CB

Re: [Softwires] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-01 Cb B
[Softwires] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-01 Cb B
Re: [Softwires] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-01 Ida Leung
Re: [Softwires] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-01 Dave Thaler
Re: [Softwires] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-01 Cb B