Re: [IPv6] Adoption call for draft-bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis

[IPv6 <[e-mail]>]

Ted,

I don't think standardization is necessarily the implicit (or explicit?) endorsement that you're suggesting it is.

Some vendors already offer more or less the functionality in question; some network operators will implement this whether or not there's a Standards-track RFC outlining it (assuming they're not already). Not having an official-ish RFC just means they might do it more poorly.

Or they'll just do N:1 NAT/PAT/"NAT overload."

Or they'll just announce provider-independent space from every site (this would be a different kind of bad).

Or they'll just continue to not adopt IPv6, because it can't do the things to which they're accustomed on IPv4.

Technical purity aside, I'd rather have the least-bad option for the internet at large.

- Jima

________________________________________
From: Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 7:43 PM
To: IPv6 <[e-mail]>
Cc: Nick Buraglio <[e-mail]>; IPv6 List <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] Adoption call for draft-bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis

Is that a use case that the IETF would recommend in a standards-track document, though? This is my point: it's not wrong to document this. What I'm suggesting is that we shouldn't standardize it. We should not, e.g., have 7084-bis recommending it. Or anything else.

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 10:34 AM IPv6 <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
Lack of imagination (or maybe cursed knowledge) doesn't mean it only solves a single problem. ;-)

It also solves something of an edge case where a leaf site is numbered off of a core site's static address space, but needs selective local internet break-out for bandwidth-intensive workloads (which aren't desired to be backhauled through the core site).

(Sorry if it sounds niche; I didn't invent this construct. -_- )

- Jima
________________________________________
From: ipv6 <mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of Ted Lemon <mailto:[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 19:19
To: Nick Buraglio <mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: IPv6 List <mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] Adoption call for draft-bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis
 
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 11:32 PM Nick Buraglio <mailto:mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
Agreed, happiness should not determine success. From what I have seen (which is admittedly limited) moving from experimental to a "higher level" RFC is typically accompanied by something like a deployment status document, e.g. the SRv6 deployment status doc here https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status

I think it's really important  to distinguish between "this draft solves a problem" and "this draft solves a problem that can't be solved already" and "this experiment has succeed and we can promote the document to informational or standards-track."

I think we can all agree that this draft solves a problem. I think it solves exactly one problem: allowing sites to keep stable internal addressing in the face of renumbering by ISPs and/or changing ISPs.

However, this problem can be addressed the way 7084 currently solves it: by numbering the internal network with a stable ULA and hosting services on addresses within that ULA rather than on a temporary GUA provided by the ISP.

Problems NPTV6 does not solve:

* MHMP (although it solves some aspects)
* Internal address privacy

So I don't actually think this document does anything useful for the Internet community. I don't mind that there is a document that describes NPTv6, but I don't think it should be standards track or informational, and I don't think IETF documents should normatively reference it.

Regarding experiments, at least from a scientific perspective, an experiment needs to have a control group. If we wanted to know whether NPTv6 solved the problem in an easier way than dual ULA/GUA, we would want to set up an experiment where some sites continued to use IPv4, some used NPTv6, and some used ULA/GUA. As far as I know, no such experiment has been done, and no such comparison has been documented.

I think the presentation Paulo has just done is the most interesting, but what we are not seeing is an answer to the question "how's it going, what problems do you have, etc."