IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Is NAT66 a help in migration to IPv6?

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-7@u-1.phicoh.com> Wed, 02 December 2020 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com>
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 2CE7B3A14DC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:02:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 AfmEKyFCaTee for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:02:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83B433A14A8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:02:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1kkVVz-0000JrC; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 18:02:03 +0100
Message-Id: <m1kkVVz-0000JrC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Is NAT66 a help in migration to IPv6?
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-7@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <8a37e3ea48b0451bb9a84ce4658bc8bb@huawei.com> <5bc4ca5e-03e4-fce1-4d80-b8e10e4a3b75@gmail.com> <AC6854A4-1569-4DC1-AA74-312B993976BC@employees.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 1 Dec 2020 00:11:50 +0100 ." <AC6854A4-1569-4DC1-AA74-312B993976BC@employees.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 18:02:00 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/G6eUseA3Anno48z0fGTBzSH8Eh0>
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: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 17:02:18 -0000

>Enterprises don't want to depend on host behaviour for exit selection.
>Ref, the slaac-renum discussion I'd imagine Enterprises also wants a 
>level of isolation from ISP/global addressing.

What does 'enterprise' mean in this context?

Is that a company with potentially multiple locations and multiple upstreams?
In that case, the company should just get enough PI space and an ASN.

Is it a company that has a single upstream ISP but multiple independent
links to the ISP? In that case the company might also get PI space, but I
assume many companies would just use a static prefix provided by the ISP.

When it comes to routing and addressing, enterprises have the money to
get their own prefixes, get routing sorted out, etc. Whether they want to
spend the money is of course a different question.

I find the uses cases where people don't want to spend a lot of money a lot
more interesting.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email