IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: NAT64 in RA, draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 28 June 2019 19:01 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 B9850120827 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 tA03YFmPbIVy for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D64EE120815 for <6man@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F2A38183; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 14:59:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B26E3B1F; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:01:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
cc: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: NAT64 in RA, draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3jDTS25ERGZYDDM9yRRTxEfY4Ltcd-QgFNor6ze2G7xA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <12187.1558972629@localhost> <D3C7EB41-02E8-48D6-9335-26A041FD64C2@isc.org> <00C00FE5-C7CD-4B99-A2C9-CCBFCB1E4850@isc.org> <CAFU7BASfJ4YS6xBzK8hNJRSMnFZmdn3VE5A=sPCC3JqRa8SQEQ@mail.gmail.com> <EC63A89D-26CD-4093-8814-4461B6D3D327@isc.org> <CAFU7BASsAwitEc==Zj6qT4izy-tFosg23DHXFVVzOixidEfMFA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3jDTS25ERGZYDDM9yRRTxEfY4Ltcd-QgFNor6ze2G7xA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:01:01 -0400
Message-ID: <6053.1561748461@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/E1wGrdyaYgWvVmg3uK5OlJl_Z-4>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 19:01:19 -0000

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
    > As a co-author, I don't see a real operational need for this at the moment.
    > Why is this not something that we can define later on in its own draft,
    > once we get more support for it and consensus that it is a useful thing to
    > do?

I'm not okay with this: I'd really like to be able to specify this in an RFP.
I'm okay with the mechanism being optional to support.

    > As an implementer, this really doesn't look like something I would want to
    > implement at the moment. Adding support for it would require writing a lot
    > of new code, and it would end up being unused anyway, because our
    > implementation prefers native IPv4 over 464xlat.

I'm not convinced that basic "single" interface smartphones need this.
Where I think it becomes important is in desktops where enterprises try to
move to IPv6-only networks, and wind up with islands of IPv4 legacy
equipement that is internal only.

I think that this mechanism removes a friction point that would prevent
enterprises from going IPv6-only for the majority of their desktop users.
Specifically, the small percentage of non-desktop-only users that might be
attached to other legacy (factory/plant/etc.) equipment.

There are other solutions we could come up with (BCPs), but they would be
harder to manage centrally.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email