IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-srv

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Tue, 14 May 2019 04:49 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 47D3B12009C for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2019 21:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 x3E7qsxpMsJR for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2019 21:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0732C12008A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 May 2019 21:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 2B4B8B3; Tue, 14 May 2019 06:49:42 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1557809382; bh=WWtuphGrhN2sOeiKF4ozziK/9ycUw/4PHLsV5VLhtio=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=s8IpBWHYFYrOxIY4IRJk1NAVeZFl3nSHWQCooJ0IaAlt2FrLwCyyNeQzPtV0Ns+gf 2wZp3+nDhhzenD2wxeLTdVRRRnUJRNnaT137wCpZeeCQYyRwFrlsFSHPsD5zGFrpEF T/BmQgdircq1SlW+u2EnvxcA43Rfs70dGd6dTAOU=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 272F7B0; Tue, 14 May 2019 06:49:42 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 06:49:42 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Martin Huněk <martin.hunek@tul.cz>
cc: v6ops@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <129843806.b7yKE7hP11@hunator-ntb.local>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1905140644380.1824@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <BYAPR05MB4245A78BEC3D7E3622A38395AE0F0@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1905131848190.1824@uplift.swm.pp.se> <129843806.b7yKE7hP11@hunator-ntb.local>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="-137064504-695402484-1557809382=:1824"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/y92gx0VCYGikI6Su_ZoyEaRy1FE>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-srv
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 14 May 2019 04:49:48 -0000

On Tue, 14 May 2019, Martin Huněk wrote:

> Sure, the SRV record does have the TTL value after which would had to be
> renewed. This way it would keep in line with updated settings. It is not
> explicitly written there, I guess it should be.

I made similar remarks for a different draft, which resulted in the 
following diff to that draft:

https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery-01.txt

The problem space with AMT tunnels and NAT64/DNS64 usage is of course not 
identical, but there might be something in there that you can take 
inspiration from.

That draft also uses DNS for its discovery mechanism.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email