IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Mon, 16 November 2015 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57E041ACF0A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 05:46:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.359
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.359 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t8OwbbQrwODZ for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 05:46:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:8240:6:a::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85D0B1AD0B0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 05:46:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from host77.186-109-138.telecom.net.ar ([186.109.138.77] helo=[192.168.1.84]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from <fgont@si6networks.com>) id 1ZyK6e-0007D1-TS; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 14:46:08 +0100
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
References: <D25D5920.C914E%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <CAKD1Yr0F888Aw0opSigtC8HV6esUrE1JECKQ4gT737s+43ayfw@mail.gmail.com> <CAG6TeAs8ie=c0F8RMioBpemCw949Bf9c7ZTNvqgaZP=10rmNcQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1EqbiGJ8EZo8E909zujUt49skcz1SNe8stEWfHnbUsTw@mail.gmail.com> <CAG6TeAsHMTyhbRrOenb1kA9XEDdOCBBbuN3ZGF3LJ=8ToyGtiQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3RUc9FEw7VyJ=ENH_sJY85m1BESo77v_maShPvCkj6rA@mail.gmail.com> <CAG6TeAv9DPYUCsNG_vHCTOpwwJ8KdhjWeGE=-s6dEuMgaVHf1g@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2VXVFareTk-J_+pcr_UW9Do-zf_uYcyjNW-MTPts6hRQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAG6TeAt2JJJmALy=pJFaojbnZrQRE0e0i-D=XtTce=rmbf08tQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1H2HgxBNOZBrx-ttoB6z6caLAck3csF=ti6CDUzW57ng@mail.gmail.com> <D267B9E3.5DB8C%evyncke@cisco.com> <CAKD1Yr2zY9qr76f-KO7DTnYXQEmMJ0O6M22nFczfjGfL5Dk=dA@mail.gmail.com> <564537A7.90102@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr3dUMEoG-De5YWDFyjGehhxBq-uyN-NSqbYgvinDUy8Wg@mail.gmail.com> <56455ACD.6040804@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr0V_8DYOCm_BcB-xjKmCJc6AX25J8QZRE-c0CgYnnUM7g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <5649721C.7010308@si6networks.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 22:05:16 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0V_8DYOCm_BcB-xjKmCJc6AX25J8QZRE-c0CgYnnUM7g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/1cCZkS2olCNF9_46qh7kBuPkbVk>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 16 Nov 2015 13:46:22 -0000

On 11/12/2015 07:53 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com
> <mailto:fgont@si6networks.com>> wrote:
> 
>     You claim that it is simpler to achieve that with NATs, than with FWs.
>     How would that happen without relying on a third party, and without
>     guessing port numbers to fake e.g. a TCP simultaneous open?
> 
> 
> The IP addresses and port numbers could be signaled out of band using
> another mechanism (NFC, bluetooth, email, smoke signals, well-known
> ports, whatever). 

Yeah. You could also do all communication out of band, too. That's
handwashing -- the problem is still there, and you don't say how you
solve it, but kind of rather flag it as "out of scope".


-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email