Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip

Cameron

As you asked for a quick review, here we go :-)

Getting a CLAT prefix from IANA sounds logical for me as we cannot 'steal' a prefix from someone else. This would also allow some IPv4-only application to detect CLAT (and possibly force the use of IPv6 even if happy eyeball is not happy).

My concern about re-using the DS-lite prefix is when (if ever) the CLAT will then go over DS-lite in some weird (home?) network configurations... This would confuse traceroute and possibly other ICMP mechanisms.

Sharing the DS-lite prefix also prevents a dual-stack measurement apps to detect whether it uses DS-lite or CLAT for the IPv4 path. About measurements, it is really easy to detect Teredo & 6to4 but much less 6RD (if you do not have the IPv4 address). So, 'just for measurements' I would love to have another prefix for CLAT

Hope this helps

-éric

> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Fred Baker (fred)
> Sent: vendredi 11 octobre 2013 14:45
> To: v6ops@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: [v6ops] new draft: draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip
> 
> 
> A new draft has been posted, at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-byrne-
> v6ops-clatip. Please take a look at it and comment.
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops