IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it

"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Mon, 17 March 2014 22:16 UTC

Return-Path: <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CBE11A0601 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 e3Eb2WSQmiYX for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com [130.76.32.231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 109A51A0574 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id s2HMGVsd028792 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:16:31 -0700
Received: from XCH-PHX-305.sw.nos.boeing.com (xch-phx-305.sw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.28]) by blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id s2HMGVeG028783 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:16:31 -0700
Received: from XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.6.193]) by XCH-PHX-305.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.5.219]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:16:30 -0700
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it
Thread-Topic: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it
Thread-Index: AQHPQYSbpcMHTQSo3EmbggTGSu6WtprlgRjggAC04AD//54fQA==
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 22:16:29 +0000
Message-ID: <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E66716481189E4E79@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <E2C06D73-99FF-42B5-A3BE-337C307BCB0E@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0fjSWfPDkvc9Z53xBKxMGzYcVGzH3tLUGbjCKmgR_Duw@mail.gmail.com> <532374CD.3040100@gmail.com> <532401CB.8000003@gmail.com> <5324A1FF.3010109@gmail.com> <53255C09.7060900@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E66716481189E49E8@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <CAKD1Yr3sA4_4y18KBmBGOmY=PLOn1W4_F-3cgKyAfp4BQMUa=Q@mail.gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E66716481189E4C3D@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <53275EE8.3060105@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53275EE8.3060105@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/31v9QcNvLxcrWUEjJ7EdY-P_UB0
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 22:16:42 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com]

> > Too much depends on how these IoT systems evolve.
> 
> Indeed it does. Personally I'd like my domestic system to be very solidly
> isolated from the Internet, probably by an application layer entity.
> That doesn't call for NAT, even though it might call for ULA.

Sure, but what you're doing is assuming the problem away. Agree that ULAs are a good solution for isolated networks, or networks behind an application layer firewall, and they have that 64-bit IID. And what the heck, in that scenario, you can always stick with IPv4 and RFC 1918!

Bert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email