Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] IPv6 Flow Label

From: Hesham Soliman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 23:17:58 +1000

On 6/05/08 11:00 PM, "Simon Perreault" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Tuesday 06 May 2008 08:52:49 Hesham Soliman wrote:
>> => I don't know why we're talking about NATs and IPv6. It sounds like a
>> flawed assumption from the beginning.
> 
> I thought the use case for TURNv6 was to allow interoperability between
> v4-only and v6-only devices, but now I'm not so sure we're all on the same
> wavelength.

=> Well, in that case the flow label is a moot point. Also, there are
requirements and solutions being worked on in v6ops to do this using NAT-PT.

Hesham

---

From: Hesham Soliman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 13:40:43 +1000

> 
> Hesham:
> 
> If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that we should not
> consider this question, because TURN should never be used with IPv6.

=> No I was only referring to the IPv6-IPv6 relay scenario.

> 
> My take on this is as follows. It may be that TURN will never get used
> as an IPv6-to-IPv6 relay.  If so, then this discussion is
> unnecessary.  However, v6OPS is currently discussing the possibility
> of NATing between IPv4 and IPv6, so there is the chance that TURN
> might be useful in a v6 context.

=> That's fine with me. In that scenario the question of the flow label
would not come up though.

 Furthermore, the IESG requires that
> all protocols consider IPv6, so it is easier and faster for me (as
> TURN editor) to simply add the small extra text to cover the v6 case
> than to fight for a special exception to the rule.

=> I think you could think of analogous situations where the requirement
would not apply and therefore the IESG would not hold you responsible. For
instance, suppose we're updating the NAT RFC or RFC 1918. I'm pretty sure
the IESG would not require you to reserve a block of IPv6 addresses for
IPv6-IPv6 NATs. This is a similar case.

> 
> Does this make sense? Do I correctly understand your position?

=> I was only referring to IPv6-IPv6 scenarios, clearly there is merit in
the IPv4-IPv6 cases.

Hesham

> - Philip