IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Sun, 10 August 2014 03:57 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 41E9B1A044F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Aug 2014 20:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -115.169
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-115.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 R4jbmTpv4L1k for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Aug 2014 20:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97D081A044D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Aug 2014 20:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1669; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1407643076; x=1408852676; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=0DsUXkFBjBj8NC2zGLHWCKNMGTrI8Ru/MJ3VJDoa3j0=; b=AkpyLJmx8RNsgSkblJsoEpxMbXOChXCMl44gcbKx0d8ttme4v8+1Dhds 1L52MeNC8YNtbdqqeScPwygHFpq0iUdd8xllWhpwxXh/cSaKcJqjgDf8x NEytczOh5NIG1CsLfzoW38WTUM75fHGfiGxGmLLHw+aIWvNpFLwLohH1U I=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag0FAOPs5lOtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABZgw1SVwTNHIdEAYEEFneEBAEBAwF5EAIBCEYyJQIEDgUOiCADCQgNvxwKhWMXj0wHgy+BHQWRGYF/gUpchnGBV5Mkg1xsAQEBAYFD
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,834,1400025600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="346331213"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Aug 2014 03:57:55 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com [173.36.12.80]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7A3vsEV008266 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sun, 10 Aug 2014 03:57:54 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.15]) by xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com ([173.36.12.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sat, 9 Aug 2014 22:57:54 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment
Thread-Index: AQHPtE85Q9MgV+ch0ke/DCbii8mM+g==
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 03:57:37 +0000
Message-ID: <AA73E6E8-EE99-4E19-B73B-AAE4C449C521@cisco.com>
References: <256EAE0B-5C11-42C7-BCA1-CEC7EE6713A7@cisco.com> <53DFD634.4020304@fud.no> <53E0C548.9050706@fud.no> <5C9FC57A-0DA5-4D36-84AE-CF1D6D17FB44@eircom.net> <53E1C587.4000506@fud.no> <3EC4EB99-F877-478D-BFE6-959F58127579@eircom.net> <53E35B3D.3080903@fud.no> <3A1BBD31-FEE7-4656-8C5F-041A959BA0A6@eircom.net>
In-Reply-To: <3A1BBD31-FEE7-4656-8C5F-041A959BA0A6@eircom.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.89.11.160]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F6372948-D08E-4351-BDDD-F1D27F69A50F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/CqS9BLZ5T2qoMBhxpsBXUd-M230
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment
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: <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: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 03:57:58 -0000

On Aug 9, 2014, at 12:07 PM, Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net> wrote:

> 
> On 7 Aug 2014, at 11:55, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote
>> what do you think about this?
>> 
>> http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/toreanderson/ietf/blob/master/siit-dc.html#rfc.appendix.B
> 
> I’m still liking it, as the advantages of an IPv6-only DC will be high.
> 
> How about the case of an IPv6-only DC network with multiple separate SIIT-DC translation prefixes (mentioned in Sec 3.4). Which translation prefix will be used in the case where DNS64 (Sec 3.3) is also being used? It seems like DNS64 might only work easily with a single translation prefix. 

RFC 6147 is designed for one translation prefix. One could imagine a translation prefix per tenant, and you would (at least in concept) need a DNS64 per tenant. That is unless you got smart and looked at the source address of the packet to see which tenant it came from.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email