Subject: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-clatip

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 05:45:23 -0700 (PDT)

A new draft has been posted, at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-clatip. Please take a look at it and comment.

---

From: Alejandro Acosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 01:37:42 -0430

Hi,
 Sorry if this question have been done before (and I guess it have been).
 I'm know this kind of mechanism are oriented to simple devices such
smartphones, but anyway I wonder how the prefix 192.0.0.0/29 is handle
in a device with more than one interface.

 I read in section three you mention:

"   ..... 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."

 Can I subnet this prefix in two /30 and then there won't be
overlapping?, should I assign one /29 and then I can not used
ds-lite/464xlat in the next interface (this is what I understand from
the text above).

Thanks,

El 5/6/2014 8:15 AM, Fred Baker escribió:
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

---

From: Ca By <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 09:12:08 -0700

> ds-lite/464xlat in the next interface (this is what I understand from

Hi Alejandro,

Thanks for taking the time to read the I-D.  The goal of the I-D is
lift restrictions.  David Thaler suggested that since the 192.0.0.0/29
has fewer restriction on its use, it is possible for solutions to
overlap and cause problems on a host that has both solutions.  For
example, if a host has both a DS-lite and 464XLAT capability, and both
are active at the same time and both are assuming the full
192.0.0.0/29 can be used, this will cause a problem since the host
will have 2 connected routes to the same place.

To avoid this scenario of overlapping space (in the unlikely event a
host has 2 active IPv6 transition scenarios), the text you quoted was
added.  The text simply says "be smart" ... don't use overlapping
addresses on a host and cause yourself a problem.

That said, i find it perfectly reasonable, as you suggest, to take the
192.0.0.0/29 and create 2 /30s, 1 for DS-lite and the other for
464XLAT... if you must have this ability.  The common Android solution
for this is to just use 192.0.0.4/32, only 1 IPv4 address is needed
for 464XLAT to function on Android

https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/android-clat/+/master/clatd.conf

---

From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 04:51:04 +0900

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:12 AM, Ca By <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The common Android solution

Bear in mind, though, that Android does not support DS-Lite and it does not
support running 464xlat on more than one interface at a time.

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 22:31:00 +0000

> for 464XLAT to function on Android

between us girls, I would expect most usages to be point-to-point and /32. But of course I wasn’t asked.