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

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Mon, 05 May 2014 22:46 UTC

Message-ID: <536814A4.7070606@umn.edu>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 17:45:56 -0500
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/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
References: <201405041800.s44I0Mvh002013@irp-view13.cisco.com> <CF8D21F3.1A840%wesley.george@twcable.com> <CAD6AjGRsCt49JSHrFMgGzeFafEKoeZwdG4xYScQALvEDtjK42Q@mail.gmail.com> <CF8D7450.1A8CF%wesley.george@twcable.com>
In-Reply-To: <CF8D7450.1A8CF%wesley.george@twcable.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/z1RhUngeV8sE2iRP8j2YnID0Y04
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip WGLC
Precedence: list
Reply-To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>

On 5/5/14, 16:04 , George, Wes wrote:
>
> On 5/5/14, 4:00 PM, "Ca By" <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> First, this draft needs to formally update RFC 6333 in its metadata, as
>>> I
>>> think there’s a need for a formal link between the two.
>>>
>>
>> I humbly disagree.  Nothing changes in DS-lite or RFC6333 as function
>> of draft-ietf-v6ops-clatip-00.
>>
>> What does change is the IANA registery of 192.0.0.0/29 to be more
>> general and serve a super set of scenarios, and that change will be
>> reflected there in IANA, not in DS-lite.
>>
>> I am open to other opinions on this, but mine is that RFC6333 updated
>> IANA and draft-ietf-v6ops-clatip-00 updates IANA again.
>> draft-ietf-v6ops-clatip-00 does not update RFC6333
>
> A fair point. I agree that the direction to IANA doesn’t explicitly
> require an update to 6333 and you’re not really changing DSLite. My
> thought was more from the perspective that originally 6333 was written
> assuming exclusive use of the block, and it no longer has it. Since there
> are at least small considerations about overlap, it’s worth the DSLite doc
> having a link to this one for those implementing DSLite that may not be
> aware of this change.
>
> Wes

I think maybe formally updating Section 5.7 of RFC6333 by adding a 
version of the text from the last paragraph of Section 3 of 
draft-ietf-v6ops-clatip-00 as the last paragraph of Section 5.7 of 
RFC6333, would ensure that DS-lite implementers are made aware of the 
new constraint created by this change.

    192.0.0.0/29 has now been generalized across multiple IPv4
    continuity solutions such as 464XLAT and DS-lite.  It is important
    that a host never be deployed with 2 active IPv4 continuity solutions
    simultaneously in a way that would cause a node to have overlapping
    address from 192.0.0.0/29.

Just a thought.



-- 
================================================
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
================================================

[v6ops] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip WGLC Fred Baker
Re: [v6ops] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip WGLC George, Wes
Re: [v6ops] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip WGLC Ca By
Re: [v6ops] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip WGLC George, Wes
Re: [v6ops] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip WGLC David Farmer
Re: [v6ops] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip WGLC David Farmer
[v6ops] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip WGLC Fred Baker