Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-64share

Le 24/01/2013 20:25, Mark Smith a écrit :
> Hi,
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> To:
>> v6ops@ietf.org Cc: Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013 9:39 PM
>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-64share
>>
>> Le 23/01/2013 00:48, Cameron Byrne a écrit :
>>> Relevant for this thread http://prolixium.com/blog?id=984
>>
>> Right; is this ipv6 MASQUERADE implementing the RFC 6296
>> "IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation"?
>>
>
> RFC6296 is experimental, I think it would be better to avoid it.
>
> Generally I think there is nothing wrong the the model being
> pursued, I think the only issue is making sure it complies with the
> existing IPv6 addressing model and related expectations, such as API
> ones.

I am not sure which API expectations are considered.

If API is BSD Socket, then I think there are some relationships with the
ways the application on the UE uses the Address in question.

The following sequence works:
- assign IP address on egress interface
- application stops
- assign Address on ingress interface
- delete Address from egress interface
- application start

Other sequences may work and yet others may not work.

A sequence which may break the application is:
- assign Address on egress interface
- application start
- delete Address from egress interface
(application may break, packets may get lost)
- add Address on the ingress interface
(application may restart by itself or may need manual restart)

Not sure whether this is the kind of API expectation which are considered.

Yours,

Alex

>
>
>
>> If yes then I think it is relevant to aspects of the problem that
>> 64share solve.  I.e. if one wants to do tethering one could use
>> RFC6296 instead of 64share.
>>
>> This RFC could be cited and commented in the 64share draft.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>>
>>> Sent from ipv6-only Android
>>>
>>> On Jan 19, 2013 5:23 PM, "Cameron Byrne" <cb.list6@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:cb.list6@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I posted this update as a WG draft
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-00
>>>
>>> Please take the time to review this update and share your
>>> feedback. I hoping that a clearly defined scope, clear need for
>>> this work,  as well running code will make it easy to advance. I
>>> am now aware of 3 implementations that approximately use this
>>> method (ios6, an LTE mifi router, and Dan Drown's Android
>>> submission)
>>>
>>> CB
>>>
>>> Sent from ipv6-only Android
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing
>>> list v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
>>  v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>
>