IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Mon, 23 October 2017 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@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 A6269137C4A; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.497 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 I6gMxjMV5hnK; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x230.google.com (mail-vk0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::230]) (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 89495139976; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x230.google.com with SMTP id d12so11743606vkf.1; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=heTLkvvmXDM4mXe1FfBH9AcXU8RRp7VHAd4ZvLcIVe0=; b=mLBJ69+/c/KGZ4fzvLxbcZ1ksYRlBLR1LCSjuepn+IZyU7YVo91JO77FeTOC4qD1Eo JvGtnSEvFJsA3XgAA4/CaU7OUJQtxir/qHcsClyvcBV1DdxtkkGm1AklhPQrFry1AQaN Xz/jw9Cy73QKiJxbvDOSZf0juAtBsJWhhsDSAkgiNT6jCpU8wPbt49DWvyjVKoHQUiIr 0gTJFVTccO61TGVRcu6iWAvHL12vGle+1H9N3u2DchsizjpG/qpBXdwPiXMmdTc5RnTc lE5qDEL2mnHHo5DcfQ6vWyHmbfK/WNHkmgLflz/dgpu/DSKVs7gjp00K3hPrZNSqs4IJ dgqA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=heTLkvvmXDM4mXe1FfBH9AcXU8RRp7VHAd4ZvLcIVe0=; b=dR8ZWviY+nD1wRGEN7NEjfHnbQ7esFzPmRxIsiiLRTkCBIVDARJw26K6o77RWmBdRa VGFsiTNeEpEkjLqI8EiKITgUZTWaTXskp/zWa5wSqshXDfY4rlJEpx9HKVCmX36hNNDA mKB59CzrsGW5oGai8E4hCBIvPob70J4d2gEVvR82zJcuOzMwnUYOn0UpcOHgoic6XeTc uqbMmEMdi9gpaFTDSCPFzTwr3tPSVf4Ks4npts4hwt8loKFJz1vLfuC7SuPieGrzZvO0 c48i86TqS/hMdF7BdKrJ6N46TGM1zt+1LjYo0ICMSwtCAvpjzBr6384N31Dv7+0bsqmZ 6tmg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXAiWZELQJpSsWjwxgwMZ0WkEH4JRRaXzb78rQ6hO2aQ1CD5ZQa 2jZZUphIUkDCoA89H1UFNIpUn7Ht9w5XLBV/pxg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+RVGl5v5ODNVTg5cLtzQt1jsBPFOPDLJtxKCjf7+3xMTkEg/WaCF3yxaVT4ZmdbwhPQ1+eViRHlRZav/T2UX1o=
X-Received: by 10.31.177.134 with SMTP id a128mr10432867vkf.93.1508783517466; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.52.221 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.159.52.221 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ebce9d8b-a293-e97d-9856-54649e19910a@gmail.com>
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> <ebce9d8b-a293-e97d-9856-54649e19910a@gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 05:31:56 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2zovYbFvfgnBStiApXUp_ne-U33vTa-eGTuSkNg5SVa7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis@ietf.org, v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, v6ops@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114416d49a199d055c3b096f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Wmrhjb5lNK6-iH2GjClmxsIm0Ug>
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: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 18:32:01 -0000

On 21 Oct. 2017 8:56 am, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
wrote:

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/stat
ement/discuss-criteria.html <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/sta
tement/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.



APNIC have measured that IPv6 is quite commonly faster than IPv4.

https://blog.apnic.net/2016/08/22/ipv6-performance-revisited/


Facebook have found that too.

https://code.facebook.com/posts/1192894270727351/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on-board/

Regards,
Mark.



   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>
>>>
>>
>
>

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email