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

Cb B <cb.list6@gmail.com> Sat, 29 March 2014 11:59 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <852615d6f8d742a095d2701496c62275@BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAD6AjGTaDen01RWU9Eaha70ah9F2fGCx-xnO8GWqbJ7L-1gRpQ@mail.gmail.com> <852615d6f8d742a095d2701496c62275@BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 04:59:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGR5k1TzrfGm9VuxE4qu3SG7_CDjRLhLWYWB9ojtU1G1hQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Cb B <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/wFSxhfonkA-THYOYYUDhnBXh5w4
Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-01
Precedence: list

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