Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org> Mon, 20 November 2017 21:18 UTC

Return-Path: <lee@asgard.org>
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 3D38812EAB3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:18:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.349
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=1.049, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 BsPIPd3BsQrw for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:18:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from atl4mhob13.registeredsite.com (atl4mhob13.registeredsite.com [209.17.115.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB4C71241FC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:18:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.209]) by atl4mhob13.registeredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id vAKLIqND020168 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:18:52 -0500
Received: (qmail 12876 invoked by uid 0); 20 Nov 2017 21:18:52 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 184.185.35.18
X-Authenticated-UID: lee@asgard.org
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.2.160?) (lee@asgard.org@184.185.35.18) by 0 with ESMTPA; 20 Nov 2017 21:18:51 -0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.2.170228
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:18:45 +0800
Subject: Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
From: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>
To: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>, Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
CC: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <D638AF08.8C73A%lee@asgard.org>
Thread-Topic: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?
References: <m1eEGbJ-0000EhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <44A862B7-7182-4B3A-B46E-73065FC4D852@isc.org> <D42D8D7A-6D19-4862-9BB3-4913058A83B6@employees.org> <CAFU7BARCLq9eznccEtkdnKPAtKNT7Mf1bW0uZByPvxtiSrv6EQ@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07AD68@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAFU7BARoXgodiTJfTGc1dUfQ8-ER_r8UOE1c3h-+G0KTeCgBew@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07C625@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <7EE41034-132E-45F0-8F76-6BA6AFE3E916@employees.org> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07D481@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <0C83562D-859B-438C-9A90-2480BB166737@employees.org> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07D534@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <26A31D20-46C2-473E-9565-59E5BA85ED8B@employees.org> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A07D63D@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <F9E3BD88-38E0-4329-A4BF-22083A023268@employees.org> <f673d6c7-570e-b2b8-e8aa-15d73ea8ba3f@gmail.com> <e697e64116f245f0b462a1a2277c704b@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAFU7BARe88myZsmbe-ssJ=M3aYCTz-et7wA7dxKA-X9DEbD8Dg@mail.gmail.com> <1c924e25e7214ff0937123ba3f0e57cb@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <1c924e25e7214ff0937123ba3f0e57cb@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3DJ-AugJCfon313qfLqXtoAsc8E>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 21:18:57 -0000


On 11/21/17, 4:59 AM, "ipv6 on behalf of Manfredi, Albert E"
<ipv6-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>; wrote:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jen Linkova [mailto:furry13@gmail.com]
>
>> People from the real world is coming to IETF saying 'we are deploying
>> Ipv6-only hosts' [1] [2]
>
>References:
>[1[ 
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/slides-100-v6ops-sessa-
>ipv6-only-deployment-at-cisco/
>[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/agenda-99-v6ops/
>
>Okay. So, people can follow whatever approach they prefer, but my first
>reaction was that switching over to IPv6 *by location* seems an odd way
>to go about it. If it were up to me, I'd say not to use that model. It's
>more a matter of end to end functions used, by hosts in a given subnet.
>If a given subnet can demonstrate that all of its hosts' needs can be
>met, end to end, with IPv6 only, then great. Shut off IPv4 in that one
>subnet. But "end to end" sessions are frequently not confined to one
>location, and it also seems unlikely that all hosts in all subnets, in a
>given location, have the same needs.

Not sure what your goal is here in complaining about someone else’s
deployment model.

A building on a campus probably is a single subnet. Not sure how you’d
find out what doesn’t work over IPv6 (plus NAT64) without trying it.

>
>The hotel model that Brian offered seems to reflect what should be the
>most generic reality. Diverse devices, diverse needs, location isn't the
>primary factor to be considered. I realize that there's some sort of
>management appeal, to make this a "by location" issue.

Hospitality networks have specific engineering requirements which may not
be generalizable. For one, they have different users and devices daily:
unlike an enterprise network, devices that tech support fixes don’t stay
fixed (new devices come in). A support call to an ISP subscriber might
cost the same or less than a hotel support call, but if the call is
repeated every time there’s a new user, the hotel has a very different
problem. Plus, of course, hotels are pretty much all Wi-Fi, which may not
be true of enterprise or campus or data center networks.

Lee

>
>Bert
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>ipv6@ietf.org
>Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>