Re: [v6ops] [*SPAM* Score/Req: 3.9/3.3] Re: [*SPAM* Score/Req: 3.9/3.3] Re: reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info

[Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>]

> On Sep 20, 2017, at 12:26 PM, Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Le 20/09/2017 à 17:13, Owen DeLong a écrit :
>>> On Sep 20, 2017, at 10:44 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Le 20/09/2017 à 15:35, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit :
>>>> Why you try to mix things?
>>> 
>>> I dont mix.  You want a unique STdsTRack.  Do you think the place is empty?
>> I’m not sure where you get “unique”. I think Jordi wants 464XLAT moved to Standards track rather than informational. I don’t see anything about unique in his request.
>>> As I said already, there is already IPv6-in-GTP for transitioning and DHCPv6-PD for Prefix Delegation. These are standards.
>> I guess the question I have for this statement is “why is this relevant to whether or not we move 464XLAT
>> to standard?”
> 
> BEcause 464XLAT is a transitioning mechanism and IPv6-in-GTP is a transitioning mechanism too, which is deployed too.

So what?

ISIS is a Standard and so is OSPF… both are IGPs.
For that matter, so is RIPv2.

There are lots of cases where more than one solution to the same problem becomes a standards track RFC.

For that matter, DHCPv6 and SLAAC are both standards. Both do address assignment.

> 
>>>> CLAT is a transition mechanism. SLAAC or DHCPv6 (-PD) is a way to provision addresses/prefixes.
>>>> No sense to mix all them.
>>> 
>>> That's a problem.  You want them to work  together, not to compete.
>> This makes no sense to me. IMHO, they don’t compete and CLAT can work regardless of how the IPv6 address on the client is obtained, whether SLAAC, DHCPv6, static, or otherwise.
> 
> But you dont want CLAT's IPv6-in-IPv4 together with GTP encapsulation - that's too many encapsulations.

True, but I don’t want ISIS and OSPF running on the same links, either.

Not sure I understand why this is a relevant topic here. Operators are capable of choosing the standard that best meets their needs from multiple standards. Choice is often a good thing. This is an example of such a case.

> 
>>> You want them to have different functions.
>> CLAT doesn’t have an IPv6 address assignment function so they do, in fact, have different functions.
>>> But the function to get a prefix is a unique function.
>> CLAT doesn’t have anything to do with getting a prefix for IPv6.
> 
> But it only works with a /64.  It means it cant work when DHCPv6-PD gives it a /63.

You’re making no sense here. An interface would still get a /64 from the /63 or /56 or /48 or whatever, so CLAT would still be perfectly capable of operating after the /64 was assigned to the interface.

> 
>>>> Many other transition mechanisms don’t state if SLAAC or DHCPv6 is used or not, and I think is perfectly correct.
>>> 
>>> Most of them are not dynamic in nature anyways, whereas CLAT seems to be.
>> My understanding is that CLAT is dynamic only on the IPv4 side. On the IPv6 side, to the best of my knowledge, it just uses whatever IPv6 address is available on the client’s interface(s).
>>> As long as they dont claim, and they abstain from to dynamically set a prefix on the network they are fine with respect to DHCP-PD.
>>> 
>>> But once CLAT gets into statements qualifying which is better SLAAC-vs-DHCP then we have a big problem.
>> Sigh… I agree that there’s no reason for CLAT to make any such statement. If the current CLAT RFC(s) do, then, perhaps we should argue for cleaning that up as part of the process of moving towards a standards track RFC, but if that’s what you’re on about here, then just say that. You’ve wasted multiple messages talking about completely orthogonal issues where the above statement is the first clue you’ve provided about what is apparently your actual concern.
> 
> I dont think it's orthogonal.

It really is.

Really.

Owen

> 
> Alex
>> Owen
>>> 
>>> Alex
>>> 
>>>> Regarsd,
>>>> Jordi
>>>>  -----Mensaje original-----
>>>> De: v6ops <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> en nombre de Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>> Responder a: <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>> Fecha: miércoles, 20 de septiembre de 2017, 10:28
>>>> Para: <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>> Asunto: Re: [v6ops] [*SPAM* Score/Req: 3.9/3.3] Re: reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info
>>>>               Le 20/09/2017 à 15:19, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit :
>>>>     > Google is your friend:
>>>>     >
>>>>     > https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/android-clat/
>>>>          Google is my friend.
>>>>          Ctrl-F also, and that page does not seem to display any correction that
>>>>     says "DHCP" in the last 3 and a half years.
>>>>          But I think CLAT should run DHCP somehow, otherwise it's a non standard
>>>>     way to get Prefix Delegation.  Does it?  (I may download it later and
>>>>     look at it).
>>>>          As long as these two things stay distinct they are in competition.
>>>>          Once you make 464XLAT StdsTrack you cant also keep DHCPv6-PD as
>>>>     StdsTrack - they are on the same layer.
>>>>          But yes, you can keep XMPP on the StdsTrack, because it's on another layer.
>>>>          Alex
>>>>          >
>>>>     > Same for other questions that you asked before … you can find it also for OpenWRT.
>>>>     >
>>>>     > Regards,
>>>>     > Jordi
>>>>     >
>>>>     >
>>>>     > -----Mensaje original-----
>>>>     > De: v6ops <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> en nombre de Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>     > Responder a: <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>     > Fecha: miércoles, 20 de septiembre de 2017, 9:55
>>>>     > Para: Erik Kline <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>     > CC: "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>     > Asunto: Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info
>>>>     >
>>>>     >      No need to stress terms like billions; that's what modem manufacturers
>>>>     >      put on the market too routinely.  Maybe we can talk trillions of IoT
>>>>     >      devices.  Maybe we can use the SI prefixes, like exa, or peta.
>>>>     >
>>>>     >      That aside, I would like to ask you whether the CLAT src on Android is
>>>>     >      something I could look at?
>>>>     >
>>>>     >      Alex
>>>>     >
>>>>     >      Le 20/09/2017 à 08:03, Erik Kline a écrit :
>>>>     >      > There seem to be some misconceptions flying around here.
>>>>     >      >
>>>>     >      >> Well, I dont think 464XLAT is deployed anywhere else than on cellular. These
>>>>     >      >> are the big numbers that the Original Poster talked about: miliions of users
>>>>     >      >> - they are on cellular.
>>>>     >      >
>>>>     >      > 464xlat is a client-side bit of code (the NAT64+DNS64 in the network
>>>>     >      > is the "other half").  It is primarily implemented in mobile devices,
>>>>     >      > and primarily in Android, to be more specific.
>>>>     >      >
>>>>     >      > As such, the number of 464xlat capable nodes is numbered in the /billions/.
>>>>     >      >
>>>>     >      > There are also some wifi (and wired) networks that are IPv6-only with
>>>>     >      > NAT64+DNS64; mobile networks aren't the only ones.
>>>>     >      >
>>>>     >      > NAT64+DNS64 is easily the single most successful IPv6 transition
>>>>     >      > technology on the planet ([a] if one excludes "dualstack", [b] queue
>>>>     >      > the Sean Spicer jokes).  464xlat can help ease things on the client
>>>>     >      > side, but it's not the only way to do it (cf. iOS).
>>>>     >      >
>>>>     >
>>>>     >      _______________________________________________
>>>>     >      v6ops mailing list
>>>>     > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>>     >
>>>>     >
>>>>     >
>>>>     >
>>>>     > **********************************************
>>>>     > IPv4 is over
>>>>     > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>>>>     > http://www.consulintel.es
>>>>     > The IPv6 Company
>>>>     >
>>>>     > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>>>>     >
>>>>     >
>>>>     >
>>>>     > _______________________________________________
>>>>     > v6ops mailing list
>>>>     > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>>     >
>>>>          _______________________________________________
>>>>     v6ops mailing list
>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>>     **********************************************
>>>> IPv4 is over
>>>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>>>> http://www.consulintel.es
>>>> The IPv6 Company
>>>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> v6ops mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> v6ops mailing list
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops