IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BEHAVE] RFC6147 and RFC7208 interoperability issues

Klaus Frank <klaus.frank@posteo.de> Mon, 07 February 2022 13:27 UTC

Return-Path: <klaus.frank@posteo.de>
X-Original-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98DAB3A0E75 for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Feb 2022 05:27:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=posteo.de
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gdKF2VDuEyQJ for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Feb 2022 05:27:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout01.posteo.de (mout01.posteo.de [185.67.36.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86EA53A0E7B for <behave@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Feb 2022 05:27:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B09F240029 for <behave@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Feb 2022 14:27:20 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.de; s=2017; t=1644240440; bh=tS+WFlQqVKtVo6b6P54an2bHRv5Ja1d+YpcZZIkENCQ=; h=Date:Subject:To:From:From; b=KvkPodBVnHjDy2M+MuPwY65CGmxr/SW0Dj1nhm4wDvj1VGh7pyxJTmGUBI8fMS0NU 4sniAyvyScPnERXFxXGzo3AJMfDmbYX275G88ErTGgYxwanAQjrJA9jDt6PNGz+snx LytNk7ykCU0G6rsknuIkMMpVsN9i5fnethHSqvups4niwvcLdLUKdF0iAyIzX0F3UW IrFbQQkfaRigSS+CVH9fx/bptfYzu2ss0+ZRchdwsjQqlyR6ldrBDo+YcgCMoOB97b 31W+VRAfA2RrCkBg66PWOf8gOwVUL3ztgR6NLJWOUUZoW6MBLjeMa4oY032YL7swVA K3aPpPkamzquw==
Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Jsn4R4Kxsz6tmH for <behave@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Feb 2022 14:27:19 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <f358110c-4c9e-0e7b-928a-bfd2e415aba0@posteo.de>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2022 13:27:19 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: behave@ietf.org
References: <5a74c013-64f4-381f-9cfc-fe9ee573abda@it.uc3m.es> <359D991D-44A2-4394-9F65-BD40597D554B@network-heretics.com>
From: Klaus Frank <klaus.frank@posteo.de>
In-Reply-To: <359D991D-44A2-4394-9F65-BD40597D554B@network-heretics.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-512"; boundary="------------ms010503080400000300040408"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/behave/Jd_8zrBNigwI0A4tOGwD-Q54RN4>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] RFC6147 and RFC7208 interoperability issues
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/behave/>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2022 13:27:46 -0000

Oh, this is undoubtedly true. I even see this in discussions with peers. 
They know perfectly how routing works. But then something in their mind 
breaks when they cannot deploy a NAT at every network border... (This is 
sadly not a joke, even though it sounds like one). For them routing is 
what you do within the company and if you want to leave the company or 
want to pass through a firewall you'll need to NAT it to a public IP...

And just that you know, I'd also vote for deprecating NAT entirely, but 
that wouldn't change anything. But this is all off topic again.

On 2022-02-07 14:11, Keith Moore wrote:
>   I suppose it would be more precise to say that NATs have mindshare - lots of people think that NATs are just how the internet works.  But the problems with NATs and also with IPv4 are more widely understood than ever.  It’s time to abandon both and set an EOL date for the public IPv4 internet.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email