IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-05: (with COMMENT)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 20 October 2017 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 AA9251321B6; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:56:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 s3VQqyYORtDY; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x236.google.com (mail-pf0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D09E12ECEC; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id b79so12857649pfk.5; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=af8n661CywdLU5dTApJ//pm2WTCNVF0yN/i4Zcwwq+c=; b=N20A/00VB7UcyJiO3nvow/1aaM28HOjC7SaImUviqnW4ZRnpDT+de9ukMrFntSyHj1 0uHJJ5pAB5bTN/cPoYiVujmqlRUcwqTJdmW8Mnk4XLybiGqAyANWBNoWmZ/fWN8MeBAB aGn4pxfZ6ed8rGP6NUQTFn//Tt1/wjQFHpZdKBU0rvp1/+hlv5s44LNBzy682k9xgTxS rdKmuYQuPxhVJUQUacoNJZwhgpW1YIFD8ebvYMEeZ2DSBHQoyUV5s+2VVy71kvtx9t9b /A9baeVgrqP7QF84ZnFEUJqDRX0B57+E9EeQYXpgbrnsB3TpBj1lAKY70AsLntGTbcvl xrVQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=af8n661CywdLU5dTApJ//pm2WTCNVF0yN/i4Zcwwq+c=; b=Ibqg5o808cIX73LHBPeYNXAkIqiqlPA5FGhOYqRVYV/FJwJVqSQzjQ1QGMrqc00UfA t3/bcn33wXUUHHsfL93CUDct4jA6NqCewBPNguFR09zGQrT4WMHrC4OkM01DmsHqS0i7 sJbxZzgeTFNhImef7Km8YBzX+sZF+wDDbu2oSA3lMgzoa48Aitplfl874sU10WbGGvLt ZSGIIpY8Kocjd9MClaO2Bxkk4kxdVRjg1i77zGjSsKvECk6L4IQkokBaQ66YEwX550Hk w+Waf2Ix2jsNO3iBynYgjOQhSaApbTEHbbO0lCHSExXvKJ0JSwh+G+YoNOaRt++jqgBA oEiA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaUYwVdF7w1PeU8lon8pwx5hn7ogGmhLn9NtfqmnLX5Bg7btxYrf QU75DlUMg9s+FimkAw1cLqY6RA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+Sx2hnRJH+qGchtequyw1PvU3SqkF9Sp2MUUSh1n/tblDtgbwjiWjdrZ9iDP/H7uwZCft3Ezw==
X-Received: by 10.99.3.7 with SMTP id 7mr5590664pgd.295.1508536587535; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:6d3c:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:6d3c:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q69sm3603257pfg.127.2017.10.20.14.56.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis@ietf.org, v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, v6ops@ietf.org
References: <150853234997.15403.8100492287000664954.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <eb737375-1bf5-1e1d-3539-2821058870c5@gmail.com> <CABcZeBMA4qiWMFDWmcFLpmTsOm096YHggY1yrx4A3-TuHjGR=Q@mail.gmail.com> <99633595-CC02-4CDB-AEEA-AE330410531B@apple.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <ebce9d8b-a293-e97d-9856-54649e19910a@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 10:56:30 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <99633595-CC02-4CDB-AEEA-AE330410531B@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/NMdmHNEBOT3-sqWKjQBszJgpq0Q>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 21:56:32 -0000

On 21/10/2017 10:33, Tommy Pauly wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Oct 20, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Eric,
>>
>> On 21/10/2017 09:45, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>> Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-05: No Objection
>>>
>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html>
>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>
>>>
>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> This document should provide a rationale for why you are favoring v6 over v4
>>> addresses when v4 addresses resolve first. Is there some technical reason
>>> (e.g., it works better) or is there just a political reason (we want to push
>>> people to v6).
>>
>> I don't think that's a political desire. IPv6 in general works better,
>> because it isn't encumbered by NAT.
>>
>> Can you please provide a reference to a measurement showing that this is true?
>> -Ekr
> 
> For the draft, I'm going to update it to point to the IPv6 RFC (RFC  8200) to point to the various design benefits that an implementation may favor.
> 
> While I agree that in our experience, we've seen performance benefits gained by avoiding NATs, etc, I don't believe that we have the correct material to reference from this draft to assert that point.

Yes, we sadly lack serious scientific measurement about this, and about NAT-induced
transaction failures too. There are data on the prevalence of CGN but not
on its effects on user performance and reliability, as far as I know.

So, Eric, I can't answer your challenge.

   Brian

> 
> Thanks,
> Tommy 
>>
>> So we want to push people to v6
>> for technical reasons.
>>
>>
>>
>>    Brian
>>
>>> I could live with either, but the document should be clear IMO.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> v6ops mailing list
>>> v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>
>>>
>>
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email