Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-haddad-homenet-multihomed-00

[james woodyatt <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:28 , mike <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I'd say that until we have source address selection that actually works and is widely
> deployed, that taking anything off the table is premature. Source address selection
> applies just as much on a homenet as anyplace else.

Disagree.  My opinion is that the potential for catastrophic damage to the utility of the Internet by the ubiquitous deployment of NPT66 in residential gateways poses too grave a risk for us to continue seriously entertaining it as a viable approach to any of the problems in our ambit.  I would say that it MUST be deprecated by the arch document.

For anyone arguing in favor of using NPT66 in residential gateways, I think it's fair to ask them for solutions to the problem statement in I-D.carpenter-referral-ps <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-referral-ps> in support of that idea. Referral in IPv4 was badly broken by the introduction of NAT44, and the ubiquitous deployment of NPT66 in residential gateways would repeat the error with IPv6.

I would say HOMENET should not be seriously considering that as an option.  Is there any significant disagreement on that point?  Are there people here who might be willing to stand up and argue that the referral problem is secondary to other objectives well served by deploying NPT66 in home network access routers?  If so, then what are those objectives?  I'm having a hard time understanding what they might be.

> Probably even moreso when you consider corporate VPN's.

Actually, VPN is usually just a special case of MIF, i.e. individual hosts are multihomed, not the whole homenet.  This is a much simpler situation to manage, and solutions for that space are already ubiquitous.


--
james woodyatt <[e-mail]>
core os networking