Subject: draft-v6ops-van-beijnum-mnat-pt-00.txt

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:06:07 +0100

This is the modified NAT-PT draft that Brian and I have been working on:

http://www.muada.com/drafts/draft-v6ops-van-beijnum-mnat-pt-00.txt

Due to a bug in the draft submission thingy it will probably be  
another day or maybe two until it shows up in drafts database.

We'll be doing another iteration next week, but feel free to get in on  
the ground floor with your comments. It has something for everyone: an  
EDNS0 option, a BGP community, a DHCPv6 option (TBD), anycasting and  
of course NAT.

---

From: "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:52:34 +0100

I'm wondering... Is the submit tool running/working again?

We just tried to submit
"draft-vandevelde-v6ops-CPE-Default-Route-Detection-00.txt"
and the tool complains that there are non-alphanumerics in the title
where there are none? 

Does any have a clue/idea on what could be the reason?
(manual posting is closed already at this moment)

Thnaks,
G/

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 12:06 AM
To: v6ops WG
Cc: Christian Vogt; marcelo bagnulo
Subject: draft-v6ops-van-beijnum-mnat-pt-00.txt

Due to a bug in the draft submission thingy it will probably be another
day or maybe two until it shows up in drafts database.

We'll be doing another iteration next week, but feel free to get in on
the ground floor with your comments. It has something for everyone: an
EDNS0 option, a BGP community, a DHCPv6 option (TBD), anycasting and of
course NAT.

---

From: Rémi Després <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:58:38 +0100

Iljiitsch and Brian,

Thanks for the early information, and for the thorough analysis detailed
in the document.

1. Full agreement, and support, on the importance of IPv6 to IPv4 
connections (I argued about it in v6 ops as early as March 2005, but 
alone at that time!).

2. On several points, I believe that simplifications are possible.
I would really like to have a in depth discussion with you in Philadelphia.

One of the items would be a better understanding of why mapped addresses 
have been avoided in your proposal. (So far, I believe they have real 
advantages and, in the NAT-PT case at hand, no real drawback).

Another item would be where checksum adjustment best fits.

3. Another essential transition configuration is that of a v4 host in a 
site which has a v6 prefix but no v4 public address.
This is the NATv4v6v4 of Alain Durand in 
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-durand-v6ops-natv4v6v4-00.txt).

I have a proposal in the pipe for this , but very little time to 
finalize an I-D.
Still hope to have it before the deadline.
It has various relationships with MNAT-PT and SHANTI.

Rémi

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:07:42 +0200 (EET)

> (manual posting is closed already at this moment)

Try making the letters all-lowercase.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:55:52 +0100

> I'm wondering... Is the submit tool running/working again?

I tried to post a draft yesterday evening and this morning and got the  
"edit metadata" response even though there were no problems indicated  
with the metadata... Sent mail, waiting for morning to arrive in the US.

> and the tool complains that there are non-alphanumerics in the title

Could be that the issue is the capitals... A better error message  
would be in order, though.

---

From: "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:28:06 +0100

'lower-case' was indeed the solution.
I did try that already for the actual file name though. it didn't work.

Hence, I just changed the title in the xml to lower case:
<rfc ipr="full3978"
docName="<draft-vandevelde-v6ops-cpe-default-route-detection-00.txt>">
and that did indeed do the trick :-)

So, my lesson learned is that not just the .txt file must be lower case,
but also the title embedded into the draft.

G/

-----Original Message-----
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 3:08 PM
To: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum; v6ops WG; Shin Miyakawa; John Jason Brzozowski
Subject: Re: Draft submit tool still down? [WAS: RE:
draft-v6ops-van-beijnum-mnat-pt-00.txt]

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:36:21 +0100

> I would really like to have a in depth discussion with you in  

I'll be there the whole week, let me know when you want to sit down  
for a more detailed discussion. I have no idea about Brian's  
availability, though.  :-)

> One of the items would be a better understanding of why mapped  
> addresses have been avoided in your proposal.

Because some people REALLY don't want to see them on the wire and also  
because it could be confusing to have the same address block used for  
two different purposes depending on the presence of native IPv4  
connetivity. I'm not even sure anycasting is going to fly, anyway,  
though.

> Another item would be where checksum adjustment best fits.

Let me know if you have any ideas about that.

> 3. Another essential transition configuration is that of a v4 host  
> in a site which has a v6 prefix but no v4 public address.
> This is the NATv4v6v4 of Alain Durand in http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-durand-v6ops-natv4v6v4-00.txt) 
> .

> It has various relationships with MNAT-PT and SHANTI.

I had stuff for this in the previous version of the draft:

http://www.muada.com/drafts/draft-van-beijnum-modified-nat-pt-02.txt

However, I removed it, because it makes the whole draft longer and  
this mechanism can be added later without any changes to MNAT-PT  
translators so there's no real need to specify it now.

---

From: Rémi Després <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:56:06 +0100

Iljitsch van Beijnum a écrit :
> I'll be there the whole week, let me know when you want to sit down for 
> a more detailed discussion. I have no idea about Brian's availability, 
> though.  :-)
I will contact you when the detailed program is available.

> Because some people REALLY don't want to see them on the wire
Technical reasons should be known for the debate to progress.

> connetivity.
Unclear to me wo far.

> Let me know if you have any ideas about that.

When a  address is replaced by another, adjusting the checksum is simple.
Using ad hoc values in prefixes in order to keep the checksum change to 
zero seems to me more complex than needed.
It may prevent other uses of prefix fields, that may be more useful.

Rémi