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

Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> Fri, 20 October 2017 23:12 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@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 92EE013305F; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 16:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 clgbVgfeoMPN; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 16:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22a.google.com (mail-yw0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22a]) (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 D75BE133049; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 16:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id k3so7677870ywk.8; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 16:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Nse+hQVhouv2m428CRW/QsMGuzpac/VtVpEi1qa2wAs=; b=H0GF8wKutt7eK9MJTDvlScMpO31eMuNCOEND7D/YNfK3GrT9KV6p3PaByNTGBd/fNq iE4ph9S+13si68X+DqgzEqmkwag67ETD9el5rtXugs2IUvyIka7ozUhPqIQCWBEvWIrC /lxIo50wzDkkF2VxpsZ90+1FNuQXm46SLh93FCGdL/UPM/N4/mGx42tJ5k6L8NNAG7ww JbZ2qSs6SwZ5B2/bHpM7eAAdd2lDxrp7YIpaNcpt6FWtMxCsUv5veWur3kYcpV8ADp36 H/498nM8gznD0x1zJDNjIfUEMKKxqgUUWrnvFBEBZll7OQC6uKTFFX8JIoQa9yKqUWsH Lpaw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Nse+hQVhouv2m428CRW/QsMGuzpac/VtVpEi1qa2wAs=; b=lmHi0lGsRX7uxejLzDUBGdd8Mi9MCERFfUQGqdzRyL5gpUCfv/qI6e0LTFwyqW/9xj Lt47Fk8oRuEh4gMSa71UnKOH0UMRbYL4+X8fxzP7TBs0u/iebmpvva78yObwqSsEPbfM VogG6QIFAKPmkbXihq7+/feK/DWu/RtmXBhfC5xJ2e8gQXgdI2rx6seNE0MJndg+HbKd CJj+O2QWc2NV2sgv9ij5CxsLt1D6Lll4QiIfDUw5tLmrgL4YS6/e6liSSnaViiSKgWtM 3YfnnzbWzBAtIvFT7NSjnJncwOrt3KbXRivOSDv5Iq9xF/SoPw0hV+4trWdevDsWY8Nl jFDg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaUYzfWbFmo8mM+MduRv4Un9NNa9Gr+7dm/iuyI6tNBzRo3wsyAd CHxDSez2uVolrg2e2MUgKQJdW0lv/Zvt90VKLkk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+T+5z+PgABUtP397x+8OlnHr+lvo+UHjDrZ57oVMB0fTdsbsO3V/m5avjLXQPXrQvNPswAidF5TIFCchH8akao=
X-Received: by 10.129.65.69 with SMTP id f5mr4511885ywk.470.1508541168094; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 16:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <ebce9d8b-a293-e97d-9856-54649e19910a@gmail.com>
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 23:12:37 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGQymQu8YfDKJDgV_xX60jqH4tQZ4GSTPbmiy=gVcLioeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis@ietf.org, v6ops@ietf.org, v6ops-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045e767074136f055c029ccb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Xlwz7c9Oh8pIjJ3SUMNm5s7wBn0>
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 23:12:50 -0000

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 2:56 PM 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/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
>

Noted Tommy’s update to 8200.

But we also like ipv6 better than Ipv4 because it is cheaper.

>From a mobile network operator perspective, ipv4 NAT paths are dramatically
more expensive (cost creating and maintaining session state in hw on the
CGN, complex large scale stateful software , ALG bugs, buying public IPv4
address to feed the CGN ...., per transaction or per port block in time
logging for LEA, secure storage of said logs, ... ).


> >
> > 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
>