Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-bao-v6ops-rfc6145bis

Alberto Leiva <ydahhrk@gmail.com> Fri, 24 July 2015 19:55 UTC

Return-Path: <ydahhrk@gmail.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 73B7E1A00C7 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 j4wIqIkHVbhe for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:55:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x232.google.com (mail-la0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::232]) (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 2A3D31A1AAE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lahh5 with SMTP id h5so20015170lah.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/EPx4H+ElvxFeBzDwUWnAKIUYp6sO5tHUjhQgmLkOtk=; b=yi4jxmF+p8fjjJIt/HTimwwa0sBwnzx1argXigpAjCDaQlO6i9tQXMOonECEPHTsSG 9DCTOFPAL062tzda+iOyrHtocJ/mIsTUJngiYfisqJSEaXGSN95MI9SaY8UFzXM3PO1h 5kQXyOAKXUuL9XzJ2y7EuJscko6DhOQjggL5vVz9i3dvmGCxOF56CEOvWt4sPIU9LXuX RkUAj+CvTiNOW4zivicRvS43ZhmNNBfVZnWEY4LfmX2MfRqIay9VOMEBnmA7+IcyU8P3 v3sUYR1BFdtxyKh7LJCjtXWTdF9s0S1CdbtvaDurAfz548Fz7daBtIekANv4y2GJSwxJ VCgg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.28.105 with SMTP id a9mr15556571lah.9.1437767702521; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.26.82 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <559A5DB6.4090602@cernet.edu.cn>
References: <201507041147.t64Bl2oR005661@irp-lnx1.cisco.com> <559A5DB6.4090602@cernet.edu.cn>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 14:55:02 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA0dE=XHppxkOQRwdwtuzB=K8rNpXEH800u3Dk+a5Vz8LRhjpg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alberto Leiva <ydahhrk@gmail.com>
To: Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/aqFa40A3wfEJBb2R7eOCuGczOhc>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, draft-bao-v6ops-rfc6145bis@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-bao-v6ops-rfc6145bis
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, 24 Jul 2015 19:55:08 -0000

Hi

>   Destination Address:  In the stateless mode, which is to say that if
>      the IPv4 destination address is within a range of configured IPv4
>      stateless translation prefix, the IPv6 destination address is the
>      IPv4-translatable address derived from the IPv4 destination
>      address per [RFC6052], Section 2.3.  A workflow example of
>      stateless translation is shown in Appendix A of this document.
>      Besides the default algorithm defined [RFC6052], other mechanisms
>      also exist, which are defined in Section 6 of this document (EAM)
>      and in [I-D.ietf-softwire-map-t].
>
>      In the stateful mode (which is to say that if the IPv4 destination
>      address is not within the range of any configured IPv4 stateless
>      translation prefix), the IPv6 destination address and
>      corresponding transport-layer destination port are derived from
>      the Binding Information Bases (BIBs) reflecting current session
>     state in the translator as described in [RFC6146].

I find this a little excessive. It also seems to mandate no other
address translation mechanisms should exist (is this true?).

I suggest something like this:

    Destination Address: The address translation algorithm is left open for
    other documents to define. At time of writing, implementations can
    choose (according to needs) among RFC6052, RFC6146, RFC 6219,
    RFC6791, EAM ([I-D.ietf-v6ops-siit-eam]) and/or MAP-T
([I-D.ietf-softwire-map-t]).

Repeat (Or make an new section and point there) for IPv4-to-IPv6
source address, and the IPv6-to-IPv4 source and destination addresses.

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn>; wrote:
> fred@cisco.com 写道:
>
> A new draft has been posted, at
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bao-v6ops-rfc6145bis. Please take a look at
> it and comment.
>
>
>
> We have submitted this draft to look for v6ops' comments.
>
> The changes compared with RFC6145 are:
>
> (1)  From the erratum report
>       http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6145
>
> (2)  From 6man's document concerning "Deprecating the Generation of IPv6
> Atomic Fragments"
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation/
>       Ntote that RFC6145 already has this mechanism, but it is just an
> option. The rfc6145bis makes this mechanism the default and the only one.
>
> (3)  Refer to RFC6791 for "Stateless Source Address Mapping for ICMPv6
> Packets"
>       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6791/
>
> (4)  Include EAM address mapping algoritm which is the current work of
> v6ops, "Explicit Address Mappings for Stateless IP/ICMP Translation"
>       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-eam/
>       There are some discussions concerning this issue, since EAM is an
> address mapping algorithm (RFC6052's alternative), not a protocol mapping
> algorithm.  We  include EAM in RFC6145bis because it is just a static
> configuration and simple. If additional details, for example hairpinning,
> needs to be included, I think those details should be in another document.
>
> We are looking for the comments.
>
> xing
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>