Re: [v6ops] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-00

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Tue, 05 November 2013 20:12 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 3FFD611E8159 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:12:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.076, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=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 uLKJq3V9YTZ1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:12:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x231.google.com (mail-ie0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFFB411E8190 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:12:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id e14so15862491iej.36 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 12:12:00 -0800 (PST)
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=6kifxrQTyUcJpBkcOF0NxaO5JrnTe4253pJqV3weWjE=; b=ec92nlQlk+l0TBHq1Vh/6nhGIwHj1p5KA5l7DjuuSYZL7xqPH48T4ucZ7faA9brRKG keC/hNPbTKD2Gaw6Pd2UyaylslG8ZhR2+U09Oxdv3pRcbxE8+QsrQ3C1/a/H81oVDoin AaB5JsExq18TLYDbhTZHkl/5a5WC6d5m8wbKScPJmG1lhTqPh4adHzqXqqamfWqW0GA4 a8+qeJwS46csLrtDoZ7YyhV9PBItX6SDHRnnAr4wllw7KZ2mlZ+dxpewQhpGTHZ5HdX/ WH0lw+gCYcHW37FzNkYjtfOsXt8tOtAew4NCEnkfuo6ovT8waXAWb8svCdEpGn5OMqra kEOA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=6kifxrQTyUcJpBkcOF0NxaO5JrnTe4253pJqV3weWjE=; b=dyqgn8lD/+fMUlkAHcO4XBsXFW+KjgP7GlvpUDJpN37GQnri/5OTxwEaIav3q2jbat jrpnQy2kMGoj0H7bjSt9BbpVcvQ9i37dZMxOKdJtKLXBTAKiim+Wiun/c1RwbEp308QA 8mJllYGMfpwvATjR4x/RgANg1RtDqxObghT5ibdIBlslVxd5e7oQjMGy27j4/vD2OKhf 5pDnIRd8USJl7l1d49eiPuDhPu/1JQ9eYtG4zevm7wKXB7aS/eEUpiTOr2VAagHtuYZ5 87Iwp6KJ0FcNkgGQq6xhyxamuIIbxQE+iJfHpUUcUDFfp+4q4CltLhzOfZeUZTQk7LN0 /Esg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkfgFEqAISBeR3v1xHaHgM1tKNBGQvd69XawYohc0FSD+q7MHdXUSkt/xlu5OPqCOHhcyMg//excoO0had+lwms68xhZjE1QHFJcorkEqECxvOKa4zoezFAhFGlkyGp7sAZ0TabvJxcx1zoE567S0+vUa0VgM01g5kVHwjrex/7q+V6gre5PYitcXg16R1NaVGajT6L
X-Received: by 10.43.178.135 with SMTP id ow7mr2267537icc.43.1383682319743; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 12:11:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.86.106 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:11:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <C8AF68BE-61D2-4131-B2F6-15547F08B908@conjury.org>
References: <29AE8DB910E7704CA043795E00DCBE7803417A05@CL08MBE.rci.rogers.ca> <C8AF68BE-61D2-4131-B2F6-15547F08B908@conjury.org>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 05:11:39 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr09xAGdYNNCTv_xWLPGoq9u480haA30R_6z+1bTth2wfA@mail.gmail.com>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@conjury.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c30bec27043404ea73a587"
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-00
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, 05 Nov 2013 20:12:04 -0000

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:48 AM, james woodyatt <jhw@conjury.org> wrote:

> The way I dealt with this problem was to use the old 0.0.0.0/8"unspecified" prefix from the old days before CIDR. These numbers have
> never been either global scope or routable. They're pretty much useless on
> the wire. I don't see why you'd need an RFC to use them for 464XLAT
> purposes.
>

It appears that (at least some) IP stacks don't like 0.0.0.0/8. For
example, Linux returns EINVAL if I try to sendto() it (but I can bind to
it).

So unless you modified the stacks in question, you wouldn't be able to
support apps that sent packets to themselves. I know this sounds silly, but
unfortunately apps sometimes do silly things, and when you're a
compatibility mechanism trying to support legacy apps, you don't really get
to refuse to support apps just because they're silly.

(For example: Skype wouldn't work if it didn't have a default gateway IP
address; if it had a perfectly working point-to-point default route with no
default gateway, it decided that it didn't have connectivity. We ended up
giving it a default gateway of itself.)