IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: FYI: Microsoft's latest on CLAT

Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> Mon, 11 March 2024 03:03 UTC

Return-Path: <furry13@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39BBAC14F683 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.855
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.855 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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=gmail.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 C_AIrpd80hN1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22f.google.com (mail-lj1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22f]) (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 86ACDC14F5FC for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2d2505352e6so56792631fa.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1710126185; x=1710730985; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=/ozO+Civ2SKSjMFHHKXD2DW0h7mapfROrCmMi/3jjaE=; b=cGj54+rWcp4NoSAKTYV1relZs4bI5e2TMQKObQ7FPAdckAfL3eTi0nvdpE4Zu07Wp2 KI302vfG95EyHTMkXJuUDpu8mFIzOtefINPLth87IanZcUmygdII75EV5uriJvhcfEnc 0lPjNK7gBMRjiXTHTCSU4rVUO5th5MPzTsXLhcM8Qz307ogOWmbTUvqviuncun/3a4q8 dU9YgX6nRJq6fBoS/4sSomEhegdH2q7EB+9iHl73kUyyIVyDApvUQJJmMQyFpFd/IdTP BbxsxCRtqr7rLllvN2Uw3lz/AAleFGWRUXkQD2kS9coqqrBl3b4NuKSVh06Tc3TyumEn mefg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1710126185; x=1710730985; 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=/ozO+Civ2SKSjMFHHKXD2DW0h7mapfROrCmMi/3jjaE=; b=A1FVW5gCtyjQEOs4uwqIBASN0aGhqKqZui/9pYcSPHqc5dx9zlvPeSts1YlsHCuXM7 beuefI3sHibXaDC5NerWAf6L2NNFWjQv9zMRTDT59f+a04kRgWYpKtT4e9ctxvBfK9kA aJPLddUD5MKZJyNUwjlR8G31jXcMH3O+MH5Yzhp1dmvkkB6bFBhhaKk8J75L7s2EEWyK lCQR6CMbkHm83Su7c2PyGMtmc8dowjR5PhBsZAqatGff4BdLG7bujOn8piPaTlzvXucM RB2x+UCinHJZ+eiTikJu/8ouDI7Q59Q51QHoDZ7rCkw1LDCpGkpZBrgDUDB6lBHVvTEF +vJA==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXiLE6eQiAUpISV4mFhjrg4UuivpvUXGaVv8rx9vYmDEo8P18IS0JcAvbnL0V3W4infSp+7WeBEXN+nCZVbYg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzJAuSuVgFWtwGaUu1JsGDuZc+xoXUUyIJOYY+RsIwvFJp4VN8z da4HUqrW7EfH0QBeXsGwczTPB+JEwSKZAgD2JBVSDHlVxpO+ov1zcixY+SnH2ghSZX9Gj8ee6Vj 3sWEZz87zgXoJkd4ZFzE0HsKbz/X9xuJ1MsM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE8nQu+lYG7kQ/4TCVDy2Jv1DTDu8YQJLusTpw//DcDm6+HiIIp/X+TdCHj3nHzwFY0TBQUyzp873i7j45glIk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:1212:b0:2d2:9a8b:f45e with SMTP id i18-20020a05651c121200b002d29a8bf45emr3070798lja.14.1710126184909; Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFU7BAQsnionnO_VZoxAnqAKad_cuQbyHzFKK4XMai_Hw8-Kyg@mail.gmail.com> <56FFAFE7-94B4-47BD-9139-1A1FA83FB472@employees.org> <1113ad66-424a-4c49-bbab-713916fe357a@fud.no> <SA1PR00MB134236D88803AC93AD95181AFA252@SA1PR00MB1342.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <CACyFTPF3aA-ntc0Srv7TRU=zvc32vY82XV6GJN8o6cr1o9_XhA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACyFTPF3aA-ntc0Srv7TRU=zvc32vY82XV6GJN8o6cr1o9_XhA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:02:52 +1100
Message-ID: <CAFU7BATXUp2P0LBgt5vbju5WMsG9gSGcLWNiikjire7wzKv6Ag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daryll Swer <contact@daryllswer.com>
Cc: Tommy Jensen <Jensen.Thomas=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>, Ole Trøan <otroan=40employees.org@dmarc.ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c5d334061359c70c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/1AKNAtONgYiQu2x-4qvUjFgzLVA>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: FYI: Microsoft's latest on CLAT
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 03:03:17 -0000

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 5:38 AM Daryll Swer <contact@daryllswer.com> wrote:

> > Jen is correct in linking to our draft, as we are endeavoring for our
> proposed text and future product to be in alignment. Deploying IPv6 but
> allowing only a single /128 per client does not seem like a scenario we
> should be designing for going forward.
>
> Do popular client OSes (Android, iOS, macOS, Windows) automatically
> request for a ia_pd? Or how exactly does it work? If on the upstream
> network, I run a DHCPv6 server for /127 ia_pd out of say a /64 pool?
>

Currently all those OSes (actually *all* OSes with the clat I'm aware of)
create a dedicate CLAT address via SLAAC (as per
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6877#section-6.3)


>
> *--*
> Best Regards
> Daryll Swer
> Website: daryllswer.com
> <https://mailtrack.io/l/5c36fc4a54cb6870a46e3b6f4c92589ff9b2d43c?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&u=2153471&signature=326721353e36d3e4>
>
>
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 at 23:13, Tommy Jensen <Jensen.Thomas=
> 40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> >>> IPv6 mostly in itself is not incompatible with a single IPv6
>> address. That’s an implementation choice....interesting to see where
>> Microsoft lands on this one.
>> >>I believe Tommy already mentioned...
>>
>> Jen is correct in linking to our draft, as we are endeavoring for our
>> proposed text and future product to be in alignment. Deploying IPv6 but
>> allowing only a single /128 per client does not seem like a scenario we
>> should be designing for going forward.
>>
>> >...e.g., by ensuring that an outbound TCP/UDP connection assigned
>> 192.0.2.1:portX claims [2001:db8::1]:portX automatically...
>> [2001:db8::1]:portY may be used by a regular native IPv6 socket
>> simultaneously.
>>
>> Note that port collision will occur if an IPv4 socket and an IPv6 socket
>> wish to use the same port, where they should not have to worry about that
>> (it would be a regression from dual stack networking introduced by the
>> implementation choice).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tommy
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>

-- 
Cheers, Jen Linkova

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email