IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IETF network incremental plan

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 17 November 2016 19:11 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5712612940B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 11:11:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 F2trnpdUW2zn for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 11:11:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x232.google.com (mail-pf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 025AD128DF6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 11:11:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id d2so50453657pfd.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 11:11:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=v5C+vg9F95UyqocUO3nbtfFQj9cZrHYzSBDuoo+h2gg=; b=PLoe46ThO5ziVBLfLvKB3Idcwm/t4fML1eXIXUW3h87G5OjS7u78+02p3wwL30ncIs pSOoG3LvGfVfNscfwM0NoR2EX7T8UPN41pJDVDFp0qPYcTd4AjtHkKklpZ3/OcvSzbr8 hBYqy/zHAq9eeFUUsj7adOrAU/vbOMqz1/t1WuqmiaCBXI7j0OzPu0ZslMWJ2kV8z2fc nB9ZBeomo8SyGEFykpeCvU7R1vOlJhznr3K/FvLCRVstmhyV8V3N6YNJ+uschoXhXwV3 S0oA4t0U9B+LyGYcfIg7aigmreNtahRVGe3HoJpo4GwV8nZTi8l+ZzwmUIGzzIuYg39I 8DAw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=v5C+vg9F95UyqocUO3nbtfFQj9cZrHYzSBDuoo+h2gg=; b=U9vsU5wGIAojra8zYBp1LWBCTgaRd8xswBEhY68hwL9yCxrubVPZq2jLqiC007G74f 4KHDvBuQ59/OMPj0LVxE387dIHXiMAXENiAoxg7ZQqQSHKsKLg/A+dtTQWP/V56wlvkq BC6XReANAMdJRnqSC729BmGoQ2EDyqmBr8w+Bcv0G81Waf+5zRdFCKf2OCPLVyzvFZFy hUy/gVKPLWw/dD0MsBUVnxani5zxj6uBLjU2oZJ2dV+FFzPF2WJDDJ76sz7r83wT5mt3 bf7SVGOufvPJU1XAy92XfpzyLepbpEYJbu5PeOppNvXjRScOnpbBxbdMxn3sak549lJ2 4gkQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngveyKb5hRpbSnJSjNWdJKMcmCty6B4+zms0tqTurVyAjoQJAWqehTljMe3o4nTpRfQ==
X-Received: by 10.99.202.72 with SMTP id o8mr10178986pgi.41.1479409904413; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 11:11:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] (117.228.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.228.117]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b71sm10000659pfj.62.2016.11.17.11.11.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 17 Nov 2016 11:11:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: IETF network incremental plan
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
References: <0C5BCD32-2D2A-42B9-8DEA-A1E1A527A8BB@consulintel.es> <m2zikzq7tg.wl-randy@psg.com> <20161117013350.GB56946@mx2.yitter.info> <DF2EDD5C-1017-4524-AD09-E0D26FC7C003@piuha.net>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <15c4d190-f50a-843f-356d-1692810918ca@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 08:11:48 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DF2EDD5C-1017-4524-AD09-E0D26FC7C003@piuha.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/DSa2HyK-Hhku_vmQoLzVK1xr7P0>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 19:11:46 -0000

On 18/11/2016 05:28, Jari Arkko wrote:
...
> But again, these are just my ideas. What do people want that we do?

Speaking for one person only, I do not believe that an IPv6-only network
with NAT64 to reach legacy services is a desirable end point, because it
includes *unnecessary* NAT breakage.

A desirable end-point is a dual stack network (with non-RFC1918 IPv4),
where the amount of IPv4 traffic is very small, tending towards zero.
That includes no NAT breakage.

So I see no argument for changing the current default SSID setup.

(We already have millions of testbeds for the intermediate setup of
a dual-stack network with RFC1918 IPv4; I write this message from
one of those, and it works fine, except for NAT breakage.)

   Brian

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status