I'm just coming back on a couple of points. Generally -04 is almost there...
On 03/08/2017 13:08, Toerless Eckert wrote: ...>>> 2.1.8. Long term direction of the solution >> ...> 1. NMS hosts should at least support IPv6. IPv4/IPv6 NAT in the >>> network to enable use of ACP is long term undesirable. Having >>> IPv4 only applications automatically leverage IPv6 connectivity >>> via host-stack options is likely non-feasible (NOTE: this has >>> still to be vetted more). >> >> That NOTE needs to be cleared up. Something like 464XLAT (RFC6877) >> might be a good compromise. > > See the rewritten SIIT section. IMHO, there can be no simpler "network" based > address translation. Where network based means that the translation happens > in some device he network operator needs to provision. Like the ACP edge > device. > Or even an additional address translation device. > > So, the only IMHO easier option is when the OS of the NMS host would > internally > have IPv4/IPv6 translation so the device/VM looks to the outside like full > IPv6. Yes, that is exactly the effect of 464XLAT in the end-system (not in the router). > Alas, i didn't have the time to investigate these options. And most likely if > at > all you could only make those work for linux. Linux or Windows, yes. In a vendor's router o/s, who knows? But maybe they will all support IPv6 anyway? > > So, for now i just remove the note and clarified the last sentence a bit. > > If there is anything specific to be said bout why 464XLAT might be better > longer term, let me know and i can add it. For now it looks like yet another > network device configured option to me, but i have not tried to understand it > all the way. I think you'd need one of the 464XLAT authors to have a look at the scenario, because I don't claim to understand it all. ... >>> Using current registration options implies that there will not be >>> reverse DNS mapping for ACP addresses. >> >> Really? I assume we're talking about two-faced DNS, and afaik nothing >> stops an operator providing reverse mapping in the private DNS. >> That seems to be implied by the following paragraphs, so the text >> seems inconsistent anyway. > > I know it under the name "split-horizon DNS". Is there any reference ? The DNS community in the IETF hates split DNS so much that not much has been written about it. I did find these: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6950#section-4 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7157#section-6.3 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-richardson-homenet-secret-gardens Regards, Brian _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
