Re: [IPv6] Adoption call for draft-bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 22 March 2024 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00619C15106F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:32:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F8SoUi_NwOO7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102a.google.com (mail-pj1-x102a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102a]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7E64C14F704 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102a.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-29c14800a7fso1789361a91.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1711135974; x=1711740774; darn=ietf.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=u2FVTKsSRo99MS8ycmf6KiGrfSmZhQJwHNIaX8k8e1E=; b=lxX5tWCvGrbsJZznn/3V3tqO6N9GE5O/86N5+Zg2AkSTQAPBI8fIMS4RmHYmUHfR/g Lx2rFOMg4iQ7lCzdszvIFHnvLWr8G94Up7XvgfohGAC2pPlK57OwYD0fkFw/mF3BRFYf pkmsJ2UZDWveaBCsuOc5iSagmtb0yrir0AytGK9mJCFOv3bZwHioC73sfbu0AwxqniYW RKVFCFVVVExE8ZTSame/0Q8l9KGGv5+G+wu69voLfhr5RrGKMsA6juFKVIk7n1fNzm0f FkJr3jVoVGsPTGUtAqFCE6oj/1xacsmvZzfE/3zCksXICEM47PpGUEh+ZfgrlqRJ3hhp 8wPQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1711135974; x=1711740774; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=u2FVTKsSRo99MS8ycmf6KiGrfSmZhQJwHNIaX8k8e1E=; b=HtYo/Cr5D7IfAiOKfVnBCj20h7JzgE1KpQp2vE4i96Ofh/k6607qHMM07xEOIVfU3X QrjohQ+oedWVPqgeFMWnn6eLM55hBvYck75I1KLEzMMCIIpr5EStf0B2S+aMrXN7EeVH 1hucogtgGOH/vDaxnLDJf8fLHeDtFSUk5iyqDVhbhcjD2KmhQtrLU9O/5yxvKJQYjFjq /HEzCW9D3UHLjBFn9oUVZpu2OcaiMPFN1kFBL/kvBc06fySITAC4h+IeaIeXV4VRUV9b 4pOH+RPeH0xJjz4sarC65A2yaB44RTx/JJCs068wDhV8bP02mQr6bHkURM50mp9RnBoF vpWQ==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXi2512+itxqClcxD2CfuvQdc9uKxfKuUvi+ROLFtVXsPoDmJ95DOVPo49fCe28t2nPhe3s245btfWhH2/1
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yzbu0AOxqP2QX4bW1JiDrTT2FA3hEmM9ewWj0uUjwiGlRIOAnMG ZdYDL8HWjVua/G13mGLUbb63Tc2cf2aj+QDDmkDsDF0VRXRnTnou
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG4FzA2A6YBCTxNCkfiBWDxAo3NPfHzSVY8SDfGGDOStGiGRjvfSDzD5mfw2ttbxPvSaZdaMg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:dc04:b0:29d:e75b:e73a with SMTP id i4-20020a17090adc0400b0029de75be73amr511725pjv.49.1711135974245; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPV6:2404:4400:541d:a600:44b7:2c2e:2bc6:8707? ([2404:4400:541d:a600:44b7:2c2e:2bc6:8707]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q2-20020a17090a178200b0029bacd0f271sm6428905pja.31.2024.03.22.12.32.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <22452b49-227b-435c-9f2a-79bc231b00d9@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 08:32:50 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, Naoki Matsuhira <matsuhira.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <df333346-f108-3782-0ff5-4bd85d7b49ac@gmail.com> <015F13BE-32F7-4C8B-8C86-C9153FE9C9E9@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr3dJ0EcMVPEGz-oHzNdWzJO1fE1u73Xxiw44BObuYTXbQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADmxuPExdq93HFRBpk6EeJdZsXOFQFDwB2EfVvkM++CDPb2gkg@mail.gmail.com> <CADmxuPEtbaehHwJhxfuhWzTeiZ7sHsveTrm69U2R67Swd1n0Bg@mail.gmail.com> <5ED8B6B1-991F-4D45-A3C3-C6BE20B00518@employees.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5ED8B6B1-991F-4D45-A3C3-C6BE20B00518@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/1xD7-a4Q3s0TmvMmEfGGrUQ97uE>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] Adoption call for draft-bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:32:57 -0000

On 22-Mar-24 22:36, Ole Troan wrote:
> Naoki,
> 
>> I don't support adoption.
>>
>> When NAT was first introduced, I experienced a lot of trouble. There may be fewer problems these days, but I think the reason is that applications are built with NAT in mind. In other words, I think it limits the ability to create applications.
>>
>> I think it is undesirable that something works in an environment without NAT but does not work in an environment with NAT. If this happens, should I fix the application or the network?
>>
>> I think it would be desirable to regain an environment where applications can be created without restrictions, and I think that would make the Internet better.
>>
>> Even though IPv6 can eliminate this restriction, I do not agree with restricting applications with NPTv6.
> 
> Could you say a little more about _how_ NPTv6 restricts applications?

That's a slightly strange question since the draft already has a "Implications for Applications" section. Possibly it needs modernisation.

But I think Naoki is missing the trade-off here, and the comparison with our bad experience with NAPT44
and even with NAT444 is too simple.

There are a few scenarios where NPTv6 makes things better for a user, because otherwise they will lose connectivity. Outside those scenarios, NPTv6 is a bad thing and should not be enabled.

It's quite different from NAPT44. I could not use any IPv4-only resource without NAPT44. I can use every IPv6 resource without NPTv6. That's the situation for the majority of users.

    Brian

> 
> Cheers,
> Ole
> 
> PS: And for this discussion let’s assume NAT64 doesn’t exist, which of course restricts any IPv6 application to be equivalent to sitting behind a NAPT44.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------