IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Fri, 13 November 2015 03:54 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 486BC1B3FAA for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:54:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 jOd1r-u2Y2kT for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:54:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yk0-x22e.google.com (mail-yk0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22e]) (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 3FB661B3FA9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:54:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ykdr82 with SMTP id r82so128174097ykd.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:54:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=5QqerIX+kJXVPp3nLX9olsTbtK6e6Yqjus+cjYUh2q8=; b=egDPVG7QwWAdf7BkWBJ74+2SNzOptgBJLC/mX9hjnS23iAS+ZLFfi8qdy/OMR6emKS yW5KuG7GcpbyqmcjcmuuyB4o6Hrmnvg8thdh0ioMzPI8bb+co8aBUDg4Nac5nWIw1DIY Jl1VQdETn3hkMi4JvL5/UdKzZMPPBBDuHtA3EbUBQkugDTmVrG0XjINFJF9Qq8i8305C eKOO4vy5yRM7WKAEZYFZiIfSYzArjlTOkUZJPe0cT7ol089vUwzuLoKCqmWy22Ve4N34 V9CPaxPgSB4BmptEjk4ksCy+5fs+5oMd0hpUUTWRNm9jXz1gPQfJCZLpeewVBUHW9S94 sBpw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=5QqerIX+kJXVPp3nLX9olsTbtK6e6Yqjus+cjYUh2q8=; b=aqdrzqytgQ4bxwU2NQH+WA6i0OjCmQIHNsK8l3Lmw8fKg1sdZNVLcWZi1wLKhkC0p5 ZRXv5Dx5oTQVWU07pKmmQw2BAtnpoB0lbpHUNAAb2mNLaYZAu8cjfy5WpLTMBDvbPn8L LUc00z6NmaX5YIMpK/jAYS0jCGa7H9dywdRktG7W3K542/pUQRTERO6IC4sASoYt8Ch/ FVy1a4tCHNhsEgWyf1fekdYCNJ+tX4gT2SVOFAWGC3frGPgH5mKaf5qnXS0N8veOzYWE cr5um7dKuAZDQg9MTWD4+qWRyvwwW029tVdrqIgi/t42PUla9dypk7F8e8aZk24Hn5FO q4Wg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlTnEQZiyxJe7EAi9nZY2+hl17YerPrGb0T9oVyrajJHO9HuRssm+j5FuNh1IrssRcyanxO
X-Received: by 10.129.44.3 with SMTP id s3mr18579461yws.141.1447386859404; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:54:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.115.131 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:53:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <56455ACD.6040804@si6networks.com>
References: <D25D5920.C914E%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <CAKD1Yr1rKjkDhhuD9L=R_MJ+ofOAZ2Nt+5mszZKQxCh-kH4vqw@mail.gmail.com> <563FA84C.7030601@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr0F888Aw0opSigtC8HV6esUrE1JECKQ4gT737s+43ayfw@mail.gmail.com> <CAG6TeAs8ie=c0F8RMioBpemCw949Bf9c7ZTNvqgaZP=10rmNcQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1EqbiGJ8EZo8E909zujUt49skcz1SNe8stEWfHnbUsTw@mail.gmail.com> <CAG6TeAsHMTyhbRrOenb1kA9XEDdOCBBbuN3ZGF3LJ=8ToyGtiQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3RUc9FEw7VyJ=ENH_sJY85m1BESo77v_maShPvCkj6rA@mail.gmail.com> <CAG6TeAv9DPYUCsNG_vHCTOpwwJ8KdhjWeGE=-s6dEuMgaVHf1g@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2VXVFareTk-J_+pcr_UW9Do-zf_uYcyjNW-MTPts6hRQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAG6TeAt2JJJmALy=pJFaojbnZrQRE0e0i-D=XtTce=rmbf08tQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1H2HgxBNOZBrx-ttoB6z6caLAck3csF=ti6CDUzW57ng@mail.gmail.com> <D267B9E3.5DB8C%evyncke@cisco.com> <CAKD1Yr2zY9qr76f-KO7DTnYXQEmMJ0O6M22nFczfjGfL5Dk=dA@mail.gmail.com> <564537A7.90102@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr3dUMEoG-De5YWDFyjGehhxBq-uyN-NSqbYgvinDUy8Wg@mail.gmail.com> <56455ACD.6040804@si6networks.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:53:59 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr0V_8DYOCm_BcB-xjKmCJc6AX25J8QZRE-c0CgYnnUM7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114278de9c108505246403a2"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/VtQDRHAINsBTnGIp0M6pBNdcx44>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?
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: <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, 13 Nov 2015 03:54:21 -0000

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
wrote:

> You claim that it is simpler to achieve that with NATs, than with FWs.
> How would that happen without relying on a third party, and without
> guessing port numbers to fake e.g. a TCP simultaneous open?


The IP addresses and port numbers could be signaled out of band using
another mechanism (NFC, bluetooth, email, smoke signals, well-known ports,
whatever). If you don't use NAT, the two parties have all the information
they need and the communication can be entirely peer-to-peer with no third
party involved. If you do NAT, you have to involve a third party, and
depending on how draconian the NAT is, that third party might have to be
proxy all the traffic for the duration of the connection. That's high cost,
high latency, and low quality.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email