Re: [v6ops] draft-464XLAT not a "trial deployment report" - not to be an ietf-v6ops I.D.

[Rémi Després <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

Le 2012-02-19 à 20:23, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :

> On 2012-02-20 05:37, Joel jaeggli wrote:
>> So, when I read  464xlat what I see is a stack of existing RFCs used in
>> a specific fashion which the draft describes. I don't see any new
>> standards work.
> 
> fwiw I agree with that. I think v6ops is the appropriate venue
> for descriptions of how to knit existing protocol specs together
> in operational scenarios.
> 
> I do object slightly to the way draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat uses
> the word "architecture". It's an operational scenario, not an
> architecture, IMHO.

The draft says "No new protocol required", but:

1. 
Section 7.5 says:
"In the best case, the CLAT will have a dedicated /64 via DHCPv6 or other means to source and receive IPv6 packets associated with the [RFC6145] stateless translation of IPv4 packets to the local clients."
How this is provided via DHCPv6 has AFAIK to be specified. 

Note that RFC5969 says "6rd specifies a protocol mechanism" although it is also using just a stack of previously available protocols, with new parameters obtained in DHCP.

2.
The same section says:
"In cases where the access network does not allow for a dedicated translation prefix, the CLAT SHOULD take ownership of the lowest /96 from an attached interface's /64 to source and receive translation traffic. Establishing ownership of the /96 requires that the CLAT SHOULD perform NDP so that no other nodes on the /64 may use the lowest /96." 

This is AFAIK a new specification, which requires specific code.
If not, I am interested in learning why.

3.
Section 7.6 says:
"In the 464XLAT environment, the PLAT and CLAT SHOULD include an IPv6 Fragment Header, since IPv4 host does not set the DF bit."
AFAIK, this isn't in existing RFCs.

4.
Section 7.7 says:
"The CLAT SHOULD set itself as the DNS server via DHCP or other means and proxy DNS queries for IPv4 and IPv6 clients"
 I find the "other means" confusing here (a new protocol?). 
"The CLAT SHOULD allow for a client to query any DNS server of its choice and bypass the proxy."
 What the CLAT has to do for this isn't specified. (Also whether this DNS has to synthesize A records or not isn't specified.)     


To me this shows that, Devil being in details, this draft isn't just an operational scenario with existing RFC specifications.

Yet, as I said, there is in this draft a very valuable idea, worth treating rigorously.

Kind regards,
RD

 


> 
>   Brian