Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Extending a /64

On Mon, 9 Nov 2020, 08:18 Manfredi (US), Albert E, <
albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> wrote:

> Tony Whyman wrote:
>
> >> The RFC4193 ULA address space seems like it would be the right address
> space for these aircraft critical systems. The ULA address space has been
> used in electricity smart meter networks I'm familiar with, and they're
> nearly if not as critical.
> >
> > You seem to be following the same path that I did when proposing
> alternatives. I tried to propose ULAs earlier this year but got push back
> from those that wanted public internet access for some classes of drones.
> But, if we get blocked by IANA then this is a route we may have to go down.
> >
> > My original point though is that enabling a subnet if > 64 bits is a
> really good idea.
>
> And, even with this idea of > 64-bit prefixes, you'd still have to worry
> whether DHCPv6-PD is scrupulously providing the same 64-bit prefix(es) you
> need for that given mobile platform, on any modem reboot, from any Internet
> provder. The flurry of different goals and worries evident, in this thread,
> and the obvious difficulty in satisfying everyone, and the need to get
> stuff accomplished in a reasonable length of time, leads me back to some
> form of NAT. This can solve all problems, without having to ask permission,
> or wait for blessings.
>
> ULAs inside, some of these firewalled, or even air gapped, as required,
> and "basic NAT." A short interruption in excomm, or a longer interruption
> if the platform was given the wrong prefix(es), causes no glitch inside.
> SLAAC as currently written works fine. Freedom in how the inside networks
> are configured. No IETF action requested or needed.
>
> Right or wrong, IPv4 and IPv6 are being used in ways the original
> designers may not have predicted. The NAT approach solves every problem
> stated in these threads, except for the one more or less religious mantra,
> that "we don’t want to do that."
>

See RFC2993.

See also the 3 part "The Trouble With NAT" articles, using network
operation criteria.

https://blog.apnic.net/author/mark-smith/

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