[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IPv6 Flow Label
> 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.
> - Philip