IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00 - are changes in dualstack hosts acceptable or not?

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 26 July 2008 18:53 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AAF73A6ACE for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6H-6JFuGoFRO for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32F053A696F for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KMosO-000K0O-0Q for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:52:20 +0000
Received: from [72.14.214.230] (helo=hu-out-0506.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>) id 1KMosJ-000Jzp-S7 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:52:17 +0000
Received: by hu-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 23so716830huc.11 for <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:52:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qdrd/KWjrsW1oUDp3epl15p1WaqXZY8xWjMQIA+8SW4=; b=Gtsm/dOBl0WKIDS1mTXXjKNFCi4W6yVzGTcCEQKNK9KbqA+qA7hAQGu87t00pWUPor H2z0W65sxg/1YOMp3oV3r+wvbZL/ENU+m8VQdGg8Gm5Qhr1iuSzEmZMaGrMxEcwzohia JrzWFuSMofoOnm9wsZvDciwTAzmCkK2Gf4/cY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=u/QgBMSmTQ0mbkMq/pD7uTbRLhOXTZ333hU7LBaX0ZRVSRn32K/4qGQ8O0SbeBYFkH pJCSdibwZ3JDrVp00RtDTjLoMZKqS9WF4V5wavkM92WyVVnM6GRrY7jPJhUhyTZaef1S fSbJSu/H76lu5p/vBlwq1hzzqqr/eFnjokUOQ=
Received: by 10.210.16.11 with SMTP id 11mr3626000ebp.187.1217097422344; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?172.16.14.110? ( [130.129.64.64]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t12sm6947955gvd.10.2008.07.26.11.37.00 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <488B4B8B.3050701@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 04:06:35 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
CC: Rémi Denis-Courmont <rdenis@simphalempin.com>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@windows.microsoft.com>, 'IPv6 Operations' <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00 - are changes in dualstack hosts acceptable or not?
References: <4889EAD2.8060809@it.uc3m.es> <200807251911.16835.rdenis@simphalempin.com> <4889FD50.4060406@it.uc3m.es>
In-Reply-To: <4889FD50.4060406@it.uc3m.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

On 2008-07-26 04:20, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> Rémi Denis-Courmont escribió:
>> Le vendredi 25 juillet 2008 18:01:38 marcelo bagnulo braun, vous avez
>> écrit :
>>  
>>> Now, the nice thing about requirements is that when you read
>>> them into detail, they can be interpreted in both ways.
>>>     
>>
>> No. A dual-stack host is NOT a v4-only host. If you read the
>> requirements to the letter, nothing excludes changes to dual-stack
>> nodes. But I humbly think the real question is not what the current
>> requirements say.
>>
>>  
>>> So, the question is: is a dual stack host a v6 host (i.e. changes are
>>> acceptable) or is it a v4 host (i.e. changes are not acceptable)?
>>>     
>>
>> Regardless of the current requirements, I would argue it is not
>> acceptable that dual-stack nodes need to be modified, for the exact
>> same reason as it is not acceptable that IPv4-only nodes need to be
>> modified: deployment would be highly impractical.
>>   
> 
> do you think it is acceptable to require some manual configuration in
> them to make them work?

I think we need to follow the 'first, do no harm' principle
to get this right in the requirements. In other words, the
situation MUST be no worse for unmodified RFC2460/3484 hosts
than it is today. Of course it may be better - otherwise we
wouldn't be here at all. If that requires configuration, it
seems OK to me. After all, we have to be realistic.

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email