IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-464XLAT not a "trial deployment report" - not tobe an ietf-v6ops I.D.

Washam Fan <washam.fan@gmail.com> Thu, 23 February 2012 13:07 UTC

Return-Path: <washam.fan@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 8A2E921F87D8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:07:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SVBpbN8lVprW for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:07:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com (mail-we0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E98A21F8750 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:07:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by werg1 with SMTP id g1so958834wer.31 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:07:54 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of washam.fan@gmail.com designates 10.180.80.226 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.180.80.226;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of washam.fan@gmail.com designates 10.180.80.226 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=washam.fan@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=washam.fan@gmail.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.180.80.226]) by 10.180.80.226 with SMTP id u2mr3146045wix.0.1330002474883 (num_hops = 1); Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:07:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zEVsqhU/ou/1rA7ojsmOPHoX+GHAch8//brG5p2tMGY=; b=BZWNjuWE/H0VTnGPGR6Hk9RUerNaAmmVpPgXk+3aAUhm1DwmkhmZRPVJ3ZqTnSqkIH V3d4ECUZT3iXc0BraoM8ZePkdloTxE4/wn0BcQXZ5DL7lnIIEhOXbqvtxVuIPXNfMf2k 49tpu3DQyXCize8WeNYoYPGTzyYz6Wap1+J/Q=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.80.226 with SMTP id u2mr2590074wix.0.1330002474846; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:07:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.1.6 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:07:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGQ8ZeBnygk4Du31wbwLdLEu+9JCT_UMcJUaza1XmZFSqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BB119B6D-FC99-4637-988D-D17FBB50597A@laposte.net> <CAD6AjGTdfGz1egdp3MpWPYBdzCM56aZejfG98pe+bWS4zf6cvA@mail.gmail.com> <824829E9-2221-401B-8781-FEF9745B946B@laposte.net> <CAD6AjGQSTE1VQyme50aY+Ki5_o57joay03KV=s7nDvm=gtm6Ag@mail.gmail.com> <36DEED71-AC8D-457D-B361-CED38F9E8F8F@laposte.net> <CAD6AjGR=bJ7jL6NQjbFPLw_MeEAx-N3Aj6wKzRsi-eYEQYxiEA@mail.gmail.com> <76642356-84CB-4AC9-AFB2-155A29A2E08A@laposte.net> <CAD6AjGSahYF3MPi-V1NXnNrjs3TYNCa1a+u15aCb=uxutNfTag@mail.gmail.com> <B8548E01-9B0D-4FB1-93A0-DAECCED48EE1@laposte.net> <CAD6AjGSX9i+Rjccu+j2D_8JFB8MOPi10+Z_m8FJ2CcSKk9QrEw@mail.gmail.com> <190FFDFA-2901-437A-BFBF-E598F56A6120@laposte.net> <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C0778D46C@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <592C29F3-56B0-4319-BD94-B1A520CF2A5E@laposte.net> <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C0778D61A@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <CAD6AjGQ8ZeBnygk4Du31wbwLdLEu+9JCT_UMcJUaza1XmZFSqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:07:54 +0800
Message-ID: <CAAuHL_A1cmfFTUW=jgjK25dTffGc=qg5PxMbAqiyiXLR_ThotQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Washam Fan <washam.fan@gmail.com>
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, Russell Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-464XLAT not a "trial deployment report" - not tobe an ietf-v6ops I.D.
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:07:56 -0000

Hi Cameron,

Just one point. See below please.

>>> Compliance with the 464XLAT draft requires specific code that none of the
>>> referenced RFCs specifies.
>>> This code is to prevent other LAN hosts not only to avoid the router's
>>> address, as usual, BUT all addresses starting with the chosen /95.
>>
>> Well, the code is nothing special, since it is part of typical NDP/DAD to prohibit a LAN host from using router's addresses (say).
>>
>
> Yes.  This is clear, and this behavior has been demonstrated in
> commercial NAT-PT systems.
>
>> However, the valid point you have is that if the LAN host duplicated the same address as that of the router (/96 based addresses, say), then the LAN host would be deprived of the address (and possibly global IPv6 connectivity).
>>
>
> It will not be deprived, it will be made aware via NDP that that
> address is in use therefore it must select another address.

DAD failure would cause the address invalid,i.e., you can not use this
address for any purpose. at least, i observed this on Linux.

Thanks,
washam

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email