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

Since earlier on this thread someone was asking for consensus: for the
record, I agree with all James's points.

I think that homenet should declare that NPT66 is not a supported means for
multihoming in home networks.

Yes, there is a multihoming problem, but no, NPT66 is not a solution/ NPT66
is simply moving the problem to the application layer in a half-baked
attempt to solve some, but not all, of it. I'd like to note that both NPT66
and Ron's multihoming draft state clearly that some of the problems, for
example the referral problem, cannot be solved by either solution. We need
to do better than that.

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:57 AM, james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com> wrote:

> 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 <jhw@apple.com>
> core os networking
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>