Hello folks, No follow-up in a week. I assume the below explanation and exisiting text are ok.
To restate, this I-D simply generalizes the scope of 192.0.0.0/29. There is no guidance on how specific addresses may be used. It is assumed the deploying party will not cause a conflict on the host by assiging the same address to the host multipls times.... as that is a general ip configuration rule. I will ask v6ops to accept this i-d and direct them to this thread to see the softwire view. CB On Mar 29, 2014 4:59 AM, "Cb B" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Dave Thaler <[email protected]> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Softwires [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cb B > >> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 10:58 AM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: [Softwires] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-01 > >> > >> Hi Softwires, > >> > >> Ales presented draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-01 in softwires at the last IETF > >> meeting. > >> > >> I am attempting to have this I-D adopted by v6ops, but v6ops requested > >> feedback from softwires first. > >> > >> Pertaining to the minutes, i would like to address some topics to make sure it > >> is ok for v6ops to move forward with adoption > >> > >> https://tools.ietf.org/wg/softwire/minutes?item=minutes-89-softwire.html > >> > >> The addresses, both in DS-lite and 464xlat, never appears on the wire so > >> there is no chance of overlap or collision. > > > > Disagree, that conclusion doesn't follow (and in my experience it's wrong). > > Overlap/collision happens when there are two interfaces on the same host > > (even if they're not in use simultaneously). The collisions can affect > > the routing table (if the host implements in such a way), ACLs like in > > host firewall policies and such, and various application-layer uses. > > > > Ah, i see your point. If the host is itself both a B4 and a CLAT at > the same time, then this collision may occur within the host, not on > the wire. > > > It's fine to specify use as the default range (e.g. for 464xlat or DS-lite) but > > important to never constrain it to only that range, assuming the range is made > > non-DS-lite specific. > > > > -Dave > > Is there such a constraint that would cause a problem? > > Looking at RFC6333 and draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip, i see that RFC6333 > says the B4 SHOULD use 192.0.0.2. To a rational person, a good reason > to not use 192.0.0.2 is that it is in use for a CLAT interface on the > same host, which fits with the SHOULD wording. > > Is there some text that you could suggest that may clarify this > situation in draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip or is it ok for v6ops to adopt > as-is? As it stands, the I-D simply says that 192.0.0.0/29 will be > generalized without making any further statements how addresses may be > used within that range. > > CB
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
