Re: [v6ops] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-05: (with COMMENT)
Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> Wed, 01 August 2018 11:55 UTC
Return-Path: <furry13@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 92D2C130F62; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 04:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 lb6IcB6lJEUv; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 04:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x141.google.com (mail-lf1-x141.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::141]) (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 972CB130E77; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 04:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x141.google.com with SMTP id j8-v6so13109325lfb.4; Wed, 01 Aug 2018 04:55:42 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3fMSLixK8TgO1YiASs1hom26o5fHs34u/3x41ek9T7g=; b=j48bLEldAtaIc/wNOf74F/pGXHRzn5w3tenCGX48Il7W79Cpteg4cARuqAxT96GiLu 8uqKtEKG+v7pkbkCLzi0oi9FqeRoHJ0SkPD9RSmPWIm/sIH7oOd3c037gXwYcqqUN7nm cIeOdJCM/cnMl/+Y3H2IG/ImXtFiuht2kRv0GnqYrXWDU+70ZnPiL/JDFvlx21+eIUJ5 92u2+K6Lxnt6PR8T1ODOzZgdpXqly0m9AcmxdATzVf84t/9b4/AgAELAWVujl3gjzl1S H4rUvEr30bwHYY21CrR5iN7AKqBB6Db8vealRHvuzGtVk4KcX5lYEQfZCQ9Qga+Z0LDg UwNA==
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3fMSLixK8TgO1YiASs1hom26o5fHs34u/3x41ek9T7g=; b=mss6A8Ini32Fueh6gTBLSmpToBC6vkDMTll7P5l5S9NedDlEgTHK/PRkqIRqOdp8CU E9xMim9eOPgBBxddPPM6SZZfY0hu1QrOkRHyyMq70jTBqQJ9tUmBLm/7l8mZm/+dpdQq Vlp4mFDy3bzJ7Px/kyHLckUIcS2y/qlQ34SdogjyghgDm9xhhFmx/Yz7ZNmphwAeYEt0 TfcU/hc+HrNVn1xtwEnHy5dMHzNVoXTM9cp4hBuhhLEjRhuCZVb9zm8w4jC2WksCxZQL dRekO9yybQwAfmuPGsyxw1UutXMD5W3kQ7jQnQNzVu9kJg4JEFoZzXMus93afOZOP01T wnfA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlHi0jy4BECh/dtAmfXPN1aVMRagfEYhEVd1IhqYp3mhWs73ekrS JSLAUWR14pAV2DjFi1bzOeq4oT7JgY0nyrFK2VgLeMw2
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpeuv6VxDJqQTWnNTljoW4QF0Dggqm+PczXL4E2tdoe6JtFgeWIp6v3k7uFvA4l39QQE+mW9GtZe+I0qxj7uztw=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:f104:: with SMTP id p4-v6mr13417381lfh.137.1533124540733; Wed, 01 Aug 2018 04:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a19:1d82:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 04:55:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <153310803137.22145.5132532082101433230.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <153310803137.22145.5132532082101433230.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 21:55:20 +1000
Message-ID: <CAFU7BAR4cmp1qxa-OEsFz_cocAuu1AvV_2r_q-x9RHGqbSHNbw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Russ White <russ@riw.us>, v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Yk2seET6O3W7rQkb1gnn_sB3GdE>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 11:55:49 -0000
Hi Adam, On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote: > §3.3.1: > >> It should be noted that in IPv4 multihoming with NAT, when the egress >> interface is chosen without taking packet source address into account >> (as internal hosts usually have addresses from [RFC1918] space), >> sessions can not be preserved after an uplink recovery. > > This isn't necessarily true. For example, if the NAT is tracking which > ISP-facing interface is associated with a given established session, the > sessions will survive restoration of an uplink. I have exactly such an IPv4 > multi-homing configuration working on my home network (with RFC 1918 addresses > assigned to all local devices), and will happily share details of my > configuration with interested parties. > > I propose striking this paragraph from the document. Good point. I've rephrased it to "It should be noted that in IPv4 multihoming with NAT, when the egress interface is chosen without taking packet source address into account (as internal hosts usually have addresses from [RFC1918] space), sessions might not be preserved after an uplink recovery unless packet forwarding is integrated with existing NAT sessions tracking." https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-06#section-3.3.1 Would it address your concern? Thanks! (P.S. All nits fixed, thanks for pointing them out!) -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry