IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org> Wed, 27 March 2024 07:46 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.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 BCBDEC14F6AE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 00:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.214
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.214 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, MPART_ALT_DIFF=0.79, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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=employees.org
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 Nm-LwMkwqAuY for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 00:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from proxmox01.kjsl.com (proxmox01.kjsl.com [204.87.183.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 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 46F21C14EB17 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 00:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from proxmox01.kjsl.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox01.kjsl.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E4D73E57C1; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:46:48 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=employees.org; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type :date:from:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=prox2023; bh=ff19KoSQZfF496cH fsQ+NaU+QhVPmWhAwMF4ip64dfs=; b=oyGGH+lTlkfTrrdsncsneOWNIr6I1k2Q 9ygUDEpJjeCesIKERGTWpBGZdk9K1zTm/S6pEA4vPR5AQn0eMYtoz+At8sZpWbDG sK7EqTBRkDutZEBwhCf3Gt5ijWbE0x3Yuetq/T/DolCcCgfxSeBNCU35Of0Pwiag 8cwj3PyvdACZQA8CFimr06TEo1goINDrqrkjvoAJAhQFcyoquSq717agf/h/uLVB vZsopvNwmZgkTbeRKzffn8XSS09H0hbxm3ivgRi71nTPvW8JjRlu421KdX1MG53X 4ItkFc+hfa+xb7rHW6cDJq/NvzmPgPaDjSy7+7ymHVM2ZphEjriO8w==
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by proxmox01.kjsl.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id C4DD2E334D; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:46:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a02:20c8:5921:200:5c68:ce3d:28df:a140]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A0614E11BC7; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:46:48 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-C103613D-665F-46B3-9E04-0452FEF34742"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 08:46:35 +0100
Message-Id: <8600C1F7-DF47-4FC8-B027-E49F83DFE6BE@employees.org>
References: <CAKD1Yr0+ArFfn7uZddMAGpxYroSxw-u=cpti4mwp_7-yRBSRSA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Naoki Matsuhira <matsuhira.ietf@gmail.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0+ArFfn7uZddMAGpxYroSxw-u=cpti4mwp_7-yRBSRSA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (21E236)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/6ioAm7CuksydCxG5QeWdfE89obs>
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: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:46:53 -0000



On 27 Mar 2024, at 02:37, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:


On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 6:33 PM Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
The benefit of NAT class mechanisms, is that cost and benefit are aligned. Only one side needs to deploy it.

Actually, the benefit of NAT class mechanisms is that one party deploys them and another party incurs the costs. NAT is great for the network operator, because it moves a number of problems out of the network operator's domain. But it doesn't do that by solving the problem, it does so by making the application's job more difficult.

Could you elaborate?
What are the other side cost? What problems does it solve for the network operator? (and I truly want to know since I can’t quite figure out what you are referring to)

How I see it is that NPTv6 solves a set of problems the host stack and applications are not ready to tackle. 
Mainly: ephemeral addressing, multi-homing, service abstractions. 

O. 

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email