Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Area Review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-05

Shin Miyakawa <miyakawa@nttv6.jp> Fri, 16 December 2011 02:26 UTC

Return-Path: <miyakawa@nttv6.jp>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A4AE21F8AF0; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:26:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, J_CHICKENPOX_54=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 96TvAy0gu7o3; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:26:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from guri.nttv6.jp (guri.nttv6.jp [IPv6:2402:c800:ff06:144::148]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B361F21F8AE9; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:26:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from z.nttv6.jp (z.nttv6.jp [IPv6:2402:c800:ff06:208::212]) by guri.nttv6.jp (NTTv6MTA) with ESMTP id 48F2BBDC20; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:26:50 +0900 (JST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by z.nttv6.jp (NTTv6MTA) with ESMTP id E1557704FB; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:26:49 +0900 (JST)
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:26:49 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20111216.112649.193767691.miyakawa@nttv6.jp>
To: simon.perreault@viagenie.ca, lear@cisco.com, draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements.all@tools.ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
From: Shin Miyakawa <miyakawa@nttv6.jp>
In-Reply-To: <4EEA34FC.30008@viagenie.ca>
References: <4EE8BF1F.9080901@viagenie.ca> <4EE99C03.6050401@cisco.com> <4EEA34FC.30008@viagenie.ca>
Organizaton: NTT Communications
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3 on Emacs 23.2 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:45:04 -0800
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Area Review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-05
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 02:26:53 -0000

Folks,

First of all, I really thank Simon very much for his quick and
good response, I really think as just Simon wrote.
Also thank you very much Eliot for your valuable comments.

Because Simon has already responded as just I want to tell,
I'd like to make just a short comment about how we think on this draft,
as one of the authors of it.


Eliot:
>> Don't end with this, but you can start with this.  Because subscribers
>> do not receive unique IP addresses, Carrier Grade NATs introduce substantial
>> limitations in communications between subscriber that were not previously there .

We know CGN is quite evil device which produces many bad problems.

I really would like to every one know that our intension is not to make
CGN perfect, but just finish it as a quick drug (I do not want to
say it is relief) as less bad as possible.

CGN is the device belongs to so called "the dark side of the Force", I belive.
And then, just like Master Yoda said,
IT IS NOT STRONGER, But it's QUICKER, EASIER, and MORE SEDUCTIVE.

  (From Quate:Yoda Home Page at http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Quote:Yoda
   Luke:"Is the dark side stronger?"
   Yoda:"No,no,no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.")

I strongly believe that Good Jedi must use IPv6,
to protect original goodness of the Internet Protocol whose nature is
based on the End to End transparent communication principle.

Even I am one of the authors of CGN and Shared Address Space 
related drafts which cause many discussions in IETF community, 
but I AM a long time IPv6 guy.

But at the same time, from network operator's point of view
(I am working for one internet network provider), 
many vendors on the Earth have already implemented CGN devices,
and many operators have already installed those into their network
because simply they need to do so for now.

So please let this work completed once quickly as much as possible
to limit (too bad) CGN implementation into the network.

>> In particular, it is considerably more involved to establish proxy
>> functionality at the subscriber border.  
>> Some applications may require substantial enhancements,
>> while some may not function at all in such an environment. 

Then, such a application can not just go through CGN. 
That's fine for me, personally.
Let us move to IPv6 !

# I am sending this E-mail from my environment which is fully 
# v4-v6 dual stack at the commercial grade.

Best wishes,

Shin Miyakawa, Ph.D
Director, Internet Protocol Technology, Innovative IP Architecture Center /
Corporate Planning Department (concurrent position)
NTT Communications Corporation
Gran Park Tower 17F
3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-8118 Japan
E-mail:miyakawa@nttv6.jp / shin.miyakawa@ntt.com / miyakawa@wide.ad.jp
TEL: +81-50-3812-4695, FAX: +81-3-5439-0490
Guest Professor, Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
Visiting Researcher, SFC Lab. KEIO University
WIDE Project