IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Integrating NAT [was Re: Celebrating NAT Was: Tolerance]

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Sun, 21 July 2019 02:03 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@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 0A93A12006A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 19:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 zjwUMdYnL7Sa for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 19:03:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32c.google.com (mail-ot1-x32c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32c]) (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 207D0120018 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 19:03:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32c.google.com with SMTP id r21so30634222otq.6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 19:03:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :mime-version; bh=cFb3Xwkg8GTKNlHyB8CX/R5g5fMN/r3PWut96Okkn5M=; b=p87uvouBz3C3zMrKhMKXP4WUPlYRbD57HzPXW6QOV8NT44QiZpDoK3b94RvbciCGux osLwMP55CmQNAOHaAE2zqWrIe44beTlENdUA4WpVG1HWvb/39kiWxPieTuqVNxHZC6tf prGiewwgpZRnvsI4jg6z69uouVYajk3ns6PyrH9xaJtKeD55xoMGuXy1IBfKq95Ceg2e skFvOolJKuqvPir+G3kteXjOhkb5wU1xB1UUgfUGd3PUODTZuQs54+gscwrNTayZ92Bc eQG+zp+yrVH9ebOrIVgKux/gJ6wRT/OK0PiD3564hYl/BVLjn8LgQ6kLy+uMPmmZIyV7 hV3A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:mime-version; bh=cFb3Xwkg8GTKNlHyB8CX/R5g5fMN/r3PWut96Okkn5M=; b=sfuxjxF2iJUx3BEwkTlwyefH3SmPkh6GIwnNFzMS7HNw6ZEN5+n/FuscpHpyZIkdxx RgJyJTh9I0gmLuiC8gomPAcqZBmxSplfvfuedsun/x+iiEOQOTTD8phIScX1A22nYAiY MUcE8kOc1s4Bc0+CvfK7BWDIoMaIR+Kd6fD756IcX4QkTFQWqtfnIqvJZijgakO29urZ Pfl1oey78S25aol1+F4+TuJOxT2hp4jnbocsGl+6aalWudiuG2/iyuVL+TPdHIs2eglL ujHRw3IgtKd6RhIYNDxaxDbZUhkjLnm8yiuSleq6yXO1GwgoPScCdu3Y4pnHat4yoErz Sb0g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWt2ziMRlOY7DfzAerbVFbh6PB+h9b0gPwH7heLbZhDbe73lTn/ 59mBvLecjkBwzWqVrinbvr4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxEH0TxJU0Lj+c5shi8lOtdfsLgJQwWthBmewzp5JM3BTaumEs+Q4L5hvnNQlkTJIUB0jiYjA==
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:17e1:: with SMTP id j88mr43045046otj.88.1563674598403; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 19:03:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DM6PR14MB2827.namprd14.prod.outlook.com ([2603:1036:301:20d4::5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w5sm11581846oic.36.2019.07.20.19.03.17 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 20 Jul 2019 19:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
CC: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Integrating NAT [was Re: Celebrating NAT Was: Tolerance]
Thread-Topic: Integrating NAT [was Re: Celebrating NAT Was: Tolerance]
Thread-Index: AQHVPz+APbdMOgoYMUW6R8cCmd6HzKbUUR4M
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 02:03:16 +0000
Message-ID: <DM6PR14MB282737CCE11227EE78325CEEF8C50@DM6PR14MB2827.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
References: <6EB5A0D4-DC17-40A8-B144-DC28F81C576A@employees.org> <A6135702-2156-48F1-A5D3-5F5EAE1B12B3@cooperw.in> <e24cae63-1a9b-7160-73cc-77c29e479eed@comcast.net> <9447eb2b-fd9f-4fa7-8e07-0bc0ad118292@gmail.com> <560a8a2b-3ece-4db9-4bf8-f16acbdc27a4@comcast.net> <ac5eec46-85d9-835a-fc53-02bb97fd25ab@gmail.com> <3b5c74d6-e219-512d-1c02-c7c66ca2573e@eff.org> <52052311-c9ed-7bbb-7f7e-edc1b0119075@network-heretics.com> <dcd35f0b-2388-ffbe-2feb-7bb6268e3cf5@eff.org> <02d3fb41-553a-eaf3-e77b-4918955ead48@gmail.com> <CAA=duU145Niuk1UtjvtM+R+LeL4jsE19Vb5=MWkV1MVmgA-LRQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgQsz=tgU6xCA5h+kV5HApZfpuU59stEmkmOpcsd2WzsUw@mail.gmail.com> <00dcede6-11a0-6a33-d4b4-ceb413f22874@gmail.com> <21fa0425-ca36-6f65-0585-2ddc64f368db@gmail.com> <CAMm+LwhLyshCfBKvXc+v5YYO+Hv3XeX0__Dp_sC7wqpetCKfog@mail.gmail.com>, <a27ac490-f2cc-10d4-27c1-1d228891237a@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a27ac490-f2cc-10d4-27c1-1d228891237a@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RecordReviewCfmType: 0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM6PR14MB282737CCE11227EE78325CEEF8C50DM6PR14MB2827namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/7aQYj4MW5t3mWYdyMAcEhlFftrY>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 02:03:21 -0000

Absolutely agree

All that is missing is the enthusiasm.


________________________________
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2019 10:05 AM
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker; Melinda Shore
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List
Subject: Integrating NAT [was Re: Celebrating NAT Was: Tolerance]

On 20-Jul-19 04:26, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
...

> * Each residence gets an IPv6/104 (or better)
> * Every device is assigned an address in 10.x.x.x
> * Devices speak IPv4 to each other inside the network.
> * Dual stack devices can contact any Internet server without restriction.
> * Single stack IPv4 devices can only contact devices inside the network unless they have help.
> * Devise mechanisms that reduce the amount of state that an IPv4 device needs to contact Internet devices to the bare minimum and allow the NAT to transport these on IPv6 rather than IPv4 to limit the need for IPv4 addressing at the residence.
>
> My proposal may not look pretty to some but it is essentially the strategy the industry is adopting regardless of IETF opinion. So why didn't it happen this way?

Not exactly, but if you look at the *current* state of IETF documents you get:

* Each residence gets an IPv6/56 (or better), so that addressing and routing
within the home are possible
* Every device is assigned an address in 10.x.x.x or another RFC1918 prefix
* Devices speak IPv4 or IPv6 to each other inside the network.
* Dual stack devices can contact any Internet server without restriction.
* Single stack IPv4 devices can only contact devices inside the network unless they have help.
* Provide WAN IPv4 as a service over IPv6 (which integrates NAT44, of course)

That's pretty much where we are today, apart from the ISPs who decided years ago to avoid the last bullet with:

* Provide WAN IPv4 and IPv6 in parallel (which integrates NAT44, of course)

NAT44 works surprisingly well, compared to how badly it worked in the PDP-11 era.

Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email