Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Tue, 06 August 2013 02:36 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 6AB6B21F9E26 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 19:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q0GkeTprXd+v for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 19:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x22d.google.com (mail-oa0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA07721F9D52 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 19:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id m1so7874644oag.4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 19:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=TTwj0YFfJYCz+34DcE8fPSViK1/adwAB4Tl0IskeWfM=; b=TUDN6oFHMDV1EGNhj3PjNMagbMLvyxxn3KCZjriD3svV1t7CFw0j41pr5/LWhAXTTa PVQ1qcLxwiwWdkgQuXPmfAXgpRrjKKn0Bnlxi0NW6AgIFgBlk2z4FVY66wqmZk3cOba2 CzyUZmF7EzgtJ0/Gfn7w6LZkmhScD/0QkInwaeSEmn/iKBzsrvuTNYrMDUA/HT6HFyjr NvSprhV/nwATQV46C4kKqp9OOlNhjBsd5OlTPgDDsdCvCgHnCunxByYqGsZX0BmHw9D4 VMTgg24aclh4uKVHzCO+P8fjSqMF5ZNgQ0up8n8MhBQUFoB6zdcZzIh1Q2kwR5VcXp3a /+Ug==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=TTwj0YFfJYCz+34DcE8fPSViK1/adwAB4Tl0IskeWfM=; b=bAsSlv45x6/UrESkJdZ1vlnYz4jsj13fzH/hhLueVBYxq8SpKJ/8/IoE/R4o5ipmL9 tgXk4fh8DFFdmP+GuJO0VQVycCCRAbTWMWYitNUjbymOTETY42igLF//znVHSFEuRTag gp83OCqtP+EcheG2PFIEPniyBGrIwZTmvZTrnq1EU2asn8P8CfD2MokqgC5Wo4Vi1qpR y1yyDEXa912sQg6eqnMVkqvz+VLMVht9EVTFKsoQV4Y1OAjg2U3lQgvUNgZv7ghabN34 p96Kgson6YcmG7AouAJW1YeoMUR/+30F6koopioLgGHh28U/gbDdnsu2fYswhs6Gmvqo 8kSg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlEluJL9pPKqGCDVUWS2Yv6KCVqBXdun27Qu37IC50shUsKxQ2tQWDGZfVY0E9G1u3Cvx2NTmOpwin+E1UM4Ylpt7GuyFrSW48Jg1hHBXpDCLmwZU+20l9R414hwvmK4Mwyv9XRIY3PRRTjm1BG8KjdE+VTWCVot2Tid0EAlotBFC9sVqb68wmjdYo50tSJi4TKDSSU
X-Received: by 10.50.127.145 with SMTP id ng17mr67391igb.6.1375756607191; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 19:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.228.144 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 19:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B96ECA8@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
References: <201308041800.r74I03pC023049@irp-view13.cisco.com> <3374_1375690984_51FF60E8_3374_427_1_983A1D8DA0DA5F4EB747BF34CBEE5CD15C5041E1E5@PUEXCB1C.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B96E2C5@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <CAKD1Yr13GK_cuvkt2LpJ1qJo2NR8eUnY-xfwMF_zWfe0P1mm9g@mail.gmail.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B96EAE7@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <CAKD1Yr2_d=4uD1W4WcQ82rupjVJ4UmmQAQmtSY+aQgTXmscNUw@mail.gmail.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B96ECA8@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 11:36:27 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr2ETKXVWjrHiwtzXKbCNGx-YjzbbsL1C4RjxExeCVT86Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013a079ee0453c04e33e4b35
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 02:36:48 -0000

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

>  wrote:
> > But if it's not indended to be globally reachable... then why is it
> behind a NPTv6 box? I'd argue is that it *does* need to be globally
> reachable, but "only for certain traffic". For example, "TCP/443 replies
> from the Windows Update server".
>
> Where in *my* comment did I mention a NPTv6 box?
>

Er... you you said "distaste for NATs", and talked about "the stateful
case". I assumed you meant stateful NAT66, which the IETF has not
standardized. I then noted that stateless NAT (by which I meant NPTv6) also
creates problems because the application does not know its own address.
Does that clarify? Did I misunderstand you?