Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-07.txt

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Tue, 11 November 2014 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 261551A87E9 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:34:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.894
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594] autolearn=ham
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 9XD_nHG9eEH0 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:34:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs-a.tc.umn.edu (vs-a.tc.umn.edu [134.84.135.107]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9B9B1A880E for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:34:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com (mail-ie0-f171.google.com [209.85.223.171]) by vs-a.tc.umn.edu (UMN smtpd) with ESMTP for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:34:01 -0600 (CST)
X-Umn-Remote-Mta: [N] mail-ie0-f171.google.com [209.85.223.171] #+LO+TS+TR
X-Umn-Classification: local
Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id x19so12035092ier.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:34:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:organization:user-agent:mime-version :to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4+/7hLrEclqKj7CdjDgRcTbDV4evbQC/asrl2il3qas=; b=mEnEhcoHWwlL6WiVrj7MRYkGHAGtuztHtNzCg8XylHkLJp1ynJZeGUfQnGZ1FxUil/ MeQ/o7A723sCOUhaVZz4+FroRxrtMC6htyrJA0a/0h5ZtycJxAC7it6me1KkwcnNFVO8 ZUaLQxEFCa5ojUxQRsXvyWnKHejeREQzB1XNw=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:reply-to:organization :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4+/7hLrEclqKj7CdjDgRcTbDV4evbQC/asrl2il3qas=; b=WrCCf4wn+PA1Vdo3guNWDzjuITcMt+rsRbp7TNAW7Ykw6Hy/w9PXMJ+mvnrDH4/SBg c9Kc0Gb3kzT2dEmbdz5Q/reFsF59U1QB4AVY7CLDpiDsYndic4YMFMYB63oOjdv8EwZx d0RSWJj34zqufUQ3tRDSewTG8bDDfFQxtC6bD/Ki9uqn7jIWSuJe2PaC5kBCvbV651vZ 18pQSB8KD0/8ehm1txZcJrXIzc1wJJ5cCdhl8bMSrhCQpgsNKKQvxbvwrXVDZXkXCRq0 B64tcox3PAZCxO2ZarVN0bAg3Q9oPyP6Z8ihWsoQWaGiL2REF4wd2qkiLTJ17K+tDfrj aM6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkXJ/dSiAmTUnzde4TXvDRign2aVpa4tjx77p5yaoprtk2nUsOykDRcVJNdvPQUcmC4tfPefKmDGa/fOvjqe88dSvLXUDxPwoyqWK83m1RhtyKLycGBZkVRG8L/UghZckfMahFG
X-Received: by 10.50.119.3 with SMTP id kq3mr34750284igb.46.1415734441139; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:34:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.50.119.3 with SMTP id kq3mr34750265igb.46.1415734440961; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:34:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from x-160-94-246-194.uofm-secure.wireless.umn.edu ([2607:ea00:104:2000:e583:488f:13ce:a9ba]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id nj17sm1020022igb.5.2014.11.11.11.33.58 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:33:59 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <546264A5.4050309@umn.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:33:57 -0600
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Organization: University of Minnesota
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, v6ops@ietf.org
References: <20141111054026.11197.49784.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5461A23D.5020506@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5461A23D.5020506@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/_ebPKQtvIsYGH7uyHvuQLB9g1YA
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-07.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
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: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 19:34:33 -0000

On 11/10/14, 23:44 , Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> This is intended to incorporate the result of today's discussion.
> Please let the authors know if we got it wrong.
>
>     Brian

I wasn't at the IETF Meeting so I don't know if you have the correct 
result from that discussion.  However, I believe the result is 
consistent with my understanding of the consensus on the v6ops list. 
Further, I support deprecation of Anycast 6to4, and the general take of 
the Draft.

But, I feel the Draft should also either update or replace RFC6343. 
Minimally, I think it is important for there to be a metadata linkage 
between RFC6343 and the Draft.  I would suggest a formal update to 
Section 4 of RFC6343 substituting the use of Router 6to4 in place of 
Anycast 6to4.

Regardless, Section 4.5 of RFC6343 recommends the use of 192.88.99.1 as 
the IPv4 source address for Return Relay traffic, this no longer seem 
appropriate with the deprecation of 192.88.99.1, the prefix 
192.88.99.0/24, and Anycast 6to4 in general.  The 6th paragraph of 
Section 4 of the Draft discusses Return Relays and references Section 
4.5 of RFC6343, I believe the intent is that "content providers might 
choose to continue operating such a relay", but I think the 
recommendation regarding the use of 192.88.99.1 as the IPv4 source 
address of such traffic, contained in Section 4.5 of RFC6343 could be 
confusing and is no longer appropriate.

The draft says RFC6890 should be updated to remove "the 6to4 relay 
anycast prefix (192.88.99.0/24)", but RFC6890 doesn't need to be 
updated.  RFC68980 created "Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", no 
update to the RFC is necessary, IANA only needs to update the 
appropriate registry, which is already requested in section 5.  You may 
want to specifically call out the appropriate registry "IPv4 
Special-Purpose Address Registry" in section 5, but there is no need to 
update RFC6890.

Thanks

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer@umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================