Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it
Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Sat, 15 March 2014 18:55 UTC
Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@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 15F8E1A01D5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:55:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.983
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham
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 9S90LQEZtxKe for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:55:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D9AA1A0193 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:55:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id s2FIt8H2014146; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 19:55:08 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 535472051F8; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 19:56:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48053201D48; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 19:56:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.86.5]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id s2FIstoU029937; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 19:55:08 +0100
Message-ID: <5324A1FF.3010109@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 19:54:55 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it
References: <E2C06D73-99FF-42B5-A3BE-337C307BCB0E@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0fjSWfPDkvc9Z53xBKxMGzYcVGzH3tLUGbjCKmgR_Duw@mail.gmail.com> <532374CD.3040100@gmail.com> <532401CB.8000003@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <532401CB.8000003@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/GecyENnrB167wQrOAwEXr__Qn8g
Cc: 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: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 18:55:20 -0000
Le 15/03/2014 08:31, Brian E Carpenter a écrit : > On 15/03/2014 10:29, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: >> Le 13/03/2014 15:27, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit : [...] >>> It's true that those that want IPv6 to be exactly like IPv4 are >>> disappointed, because IPv6 is not IPv4. No, you can't do routing >>> without RAs. No, you can't "save addresses" by making host >>> subnets /120s (at least not easily). No, there is no RFC1918. No, >>> ULAs are not the same as RFC1918. No, there is no NAT. >> >> Yes there is IPv6 NAT an dit works just like in IPv4. > > We can't make it illegal, but we have already made it unnecessary. Hi Brian, I agree with this in a sense: IPv6 address space is huge and hence the IPv4 NAT is unnecessary. IPv6 being embraced in more and more places is a witness of this success. It solves the IPv4 depletion problem in a more Internet way than the architecturally e2e impossible way of NAT IPv4. But, until cellular and some DSL operators provide something shorter than a single /64 to a single SIM end user, or alternatively the SLAAC/WiFi changes its EUI-64/64 IID stance, the IPv6 NAT is a viable solution. I consider it seriously when connecting any mobile network to the Internet - like a multi-subnet LAN of a cheap vehicle, or a WPAN, or a fixed sensor network, or a fixed hotspot in a remote area. Alex > > Brian > >> >> Alex >> >> >> But I think that in a lot of scenarios >>> those are advantages, not disadvantages. >>> >>> When people say that IPv6 can't be deployed in ISPs, in >>> enterprise networks, in content providers, in home networks, or >>> in mobile networks because it lacks feature X, we'd do well to >>> remember that there are large deployments of IPv6 in all these >>> areas. I know, because I've personally been involved in all of >>> the above. In my experience, excuses for not deploying IPv6 are, >>> to a great extent, just that: excuses. They have no relationship >>> to the actual reason for not deploying it, which is, and has >>> always been, "we see no benefit" (or, to a lesser extent, "our >>> code doesn't support it", and "our code has bugs" -- both of >>> which are temporary). These excuses mislead the IETF into >>> thinking that the lack of IPv6 deployment means that there is >>> somehow something wrong with the protocol. This in turn causes >>> hand-wringing and standards-writing, but in my experience, that >>> doesn't help: when we remove an excuse, people move on to another >>> excuse -- because the excuse wasn't the real reason anyway. >>> >>> Continued tinkering with IPv6 - especially tinkering with it to >>> make it look more and more like IPv4 in order to reduce imagined >>> "barriers to adoption" - will just erode IPv6's long-term >>> advantages by eliminating the simplification, robustness, and >>> benefits that IPv6 as it is today *does* provide -- and it won't >>> lead to adoption anyway, because lack of adoption is not a >>> technical issue. >>> >>> What we need to do now is stick to the protocols as designed and >>> wait until the combination of ever-increasing pain caused by IPv4 >>> exhaustion, and exponentially-increasing IPv6 deployment in the >>> Internet at large (or at least in the consumer space), change the >>> "there's no benefit" equation. That *does* have the power to >>> cause deployment in a way which changing the standards will never >>> have -- and as you put it, the more we change now, the more we >>> *delay* deployment, by causing vendors to write code that then >>> needs to be waited for, tested, and debugged before operators can >>> deploy. >>> >>> Personally, I think 6man has the duty to ensure that no radical >>> changes go into the core protocols until *real deployment >>> experience* -- not of the "I can't deploy because..." kind, but >>> only of the "I deployed *and it didn't work because...*" kind -- >>> shows that there is really a gap in functionality, and even then, >>> to think extremely carefully whether the long-term effects will >>> be beneficial or not. We're hoping that this IPv6 thing is going >>> to last us for the next 30 years. Let's not get too hung up on >>> the next 3. >>> >>> >>> Cheers, Lorenzo >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>> ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> >> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative >> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > >
- Re: A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stab… Erik Nordmark
- A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stabilit… RJ Atkinson
- Re: A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stab… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stab… Sander Steffann
- Re: A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stab… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stab… Cb B
- Re: A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stab… RJ Atkinson
- Re: A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stab… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stab… t.petch
- Re: A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stab… RJ Atkinson
- Re: A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stab… RJ Atkinson
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it (was: … Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stab… Mark ZZZ Smith
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Brian E Carpenter
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Jeroen Massar
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Brian E Carpenter
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Jeroen Massar
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Brian E Carpenter
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Brian E Carpenter
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Hesham Soliman
- Re: A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stab… Hesham Soliman
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it joel jaeggli
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it joel jaeggli
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Brian E Carpenter
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Alexandru Petrescu
- RE: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Hesham Soliman
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Hesham Soliman
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Alexandru Petrescu
- RE: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Brian E Carpenter
- RE: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Manfredi, Albert E
- RE: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Cb B
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Hesham Soliman
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Hesham Soliman
- RE: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Brian E Carpenter
- Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stab… Glen Turner
- Re: A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stab… Ole Troan
- Re: A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stab… Glen Turner
- Re: A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stab… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stab… Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stab… Glen Turner
- Re: A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stab… Tim Chown
- Link addressing (was: Re: A Plea for Architectura… Ole Troan
- Re: Link addressing Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Link addressing (was: Re: A Plea for Architec… Mark ZZZ Smith
- Re: Link addressing (was: Re: A Plea for Architec… sthaug
- Re: Link addressing (was: Re: A Plea for Architec… Ole Troan
- Re: Link addressing (was: Re: A Plea for Architec… Mark ZZZ Smith
- Re: Link addressing (was: Re: A Plea for Architec… Mark ZZZ Smith
- Re: Link addressing Erik Nordmark