IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it

Cb B <cb.list6@gmail.com> Mon, 17 March 2014 22:22 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.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 EFF281A063A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 KnwXhZysdVL8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x233.google.com (mail-wg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 105891A031D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id k14so5273651wgh.10 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=MgI3tkSEQQqZjyLi2IYlQ6v4KjBKhwkhApJIaugx5VU=; b=gXqzmFfffd96tIwBTfdRjvjxtSjIub31Ss0d6ouLZTJfpEdYO7GleDbQgL9ZPq6+3a OMYRYMWftkmmYDVJGoeYdEw1Q0oebp4ZmiW+1hATC+4FM2lOhJpXRZ1Jc055pU7Oaexi OYBJLSCczN80HdOp5pluEtA4yVs6gSF1MAVy+C1Km/SkEODLTkGQhH+4qe7f8ZRBmaEI ntNZx4iUp1PALodnB0HhuGGcqlVzeX8ZiWWBBcglre6JIdmwSnPX8Hv2EOiUzgwL8R/6 qf+Af0hDMJX2N09GAzKA2SIBSbLZru/wj530zJLv8se3h3EqoiOd3HxP5FnznnFMn7p0 oxfw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.242.231 with SMTP id wt7mr4132567wjc.52.1395094920584; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.106.130 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.106.130 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <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> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E66716481189E4E79@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:22:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGS=LHzbn6Eqck3cnUK1JvQwNWrCXsm_h3mEvc7-XwSn2w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RE: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it
From: Cb B <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013d1c682b644204f4d4d93f"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Buzz8KIHH7NdJPDULvyMBZp3PL0
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 22:22:11 -0000

On Mar 17, 2014 3:16 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
wrote:
>
> > -----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!
>

Not when the space required for that isolated network is larger than the
space in rfc1918, or rfc 1918 space is already used up in another part of
the network.

CB

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email