> -Original Message-
> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:iljit...@muada.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 7:57 AM
> To: Dave Thaler
> Cc: Christian Huitema; Xing Li; 6man; Behave WG
> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Perils of structured host identifiers
>
> On 17 jul 200
On 17 jul 2009, at 20:29, Dave Thaler wrote:
In the NAT64 case that would mean that a fake NAT64
tries to spoof the source addresses (that encode IPv4 addresses) of
the real NAT64.
Now you lost me. If a NAT64 (whether stateless or stateful) uses
a CGA, then it can be validated as being the l
i; 6man; Behave WG
> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Perils of structured host identifiers
>
> On 7 jul 2009, at 22:21, Dave Thaler wrote:
>
> >> CGAs are only useful when they're assigned to a host, not in the
> >> address space of protocol A that represents the address sp
In message <6504f50e-c15b-4233-bd5d-f917f35bb...@muada.com>, Iljitsch van Beijn
um writes:
> On 8 jul 2009, at 15:12, R=E9mi Despr=E9s wrote:
>
> >> The u/l bit is reserved for global use as Brian Carpenter also noted.
>
> > Well, it gets complex.
> > Discussing the point offline in Stockholm mi
On 9 jul 2009, at 21:55, Christian Huitema wrote:
There are about 3.7 billion usable IPv4 addresses. Do you really want
to make a table that big, when the IPv6 host is going to expose
everything to every IPv6 node it talks to anyway?
Very few hosts speak to 3.7 billion peers at the same time.
> There are about 3.7 billion usable IPv4 addresses. Do you really want
> to make a table that big, when the IPv6 host is going to expose
> everything to every IPv6 node it talks to anyway?
Very few hosts speak to 3.7 billion peers at the same time. Those who do
probably have dual stack. In most
On 9 jul 2009, at 16:05, Christian Huitema wrote:
The DNS64 does not have "to stuff the IPv4 bits somewhere in the
IPv6 bits." It could also use mapping tables to map the IPv4 bits to
arbitrary IPv6 bits.
There are about 3.7 billion usable IPv4 addresses. Do you really want
to make a tabl
> The DNS64 has to stuff the IPv4 bits somewhere in the IPv6 bits.
> Although it's simpler to do that at a 32 bit boundary (and a 16 bit
> boundary has checksumming advantages), as far as I know all of this
> happens in software and can be handled fast enough even if the rules
> get more complex to
On 8 jul 2009, at 15:12, Rémi Després wrote:
The u/l bit is reserved for global use as Brian Carpenter also noted.
Well, it gets complex.
Discussing the point offline in Stockholm might be better than by
mail.
Would that be useful?
The whole point of NAT64 is to work with unmodified clie
Iljitsch van Beijnum escribió:
On 8 jul 2009, at 9:42, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
for example, suppose you want to run shim6 on the nat64 box, how
would you do it if you cannot use the lower 64 bits to store crypto
info?
So then you would have one NAT64 with two Prefix64s, where the CGA
p
On 8 jul 2009, at 9:42, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
for example, suppose you want to run shim6 on the nat64 box, how
would you do it if you cannot use the lower 64 bits to store crypto
info?
So then you would have one NAT64 with two Prefix64s, where the CGA
proves that Prefix64a and Pref
Iljitsch van Beijnum escribió:
On 7 jul 2009, at 22:21, Dave Thaler wrote:
CGAs are only useful when they're assigned to a host, not in the
address space of protocol A that represents the address space of
protocol B.
Disagree. I'm not sure it's a big deal, but I disagree it has
0 worth. CG
On 7 jul 2009, at 22:21, Dave Thaler wrote:
CGAs are only useful when they're assigned to a host, not in the
address space of protocol A that represents the address space of
protocol B.
Disagree. I'm not sure it's a big deal, but I disagree it has
0 worth. CGAs are useful to prevent spoofin
> -Original Message-
> From: behave-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:behave-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum
> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 12:36 AM
> To: marcelo bagnulo braun
> Cc: Christian Huitema; 6man; Dave Thaler; Xing Li; Behave WG
> Subject: R
On 6 jul 2009, at 21:26, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
Maybe this can be addressed by having the Pref64 i.e. the prefix
used to make representations of IPv4 addresses in the IPv4 address
space to be shorter than 32 bits.
This would allow to have the Pref64+ IPv4 address shorter than 64
bits
Christian Huitema escribió:
May I throw a dose of caution in this debate about host identifiers formats?
Many transition mechanisms rely on encoding information in the 64 bit host
identifier. This is of course a tempting design point, because it diminishes
the amount of state that servers have
16 matches
Mail list logo
