Re: [v6ops] A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Wed, 20 February 2019 20:30 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 18589130E91; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:30:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 nzJbIT5LgyPL; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:30:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFF1F130E85; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:30:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Envelope-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x1KKU3Cn040177 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 20 Feb 2019 20:30:03 GMT (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.local
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
To: "Manfredi (US), Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
References: <6D78F4B2-A30D-4562-AC21-E4D3DE019D90@consulintel.es> <B6E2EC33-EEAF-40D0-AFCC-BDAFA9134ACD@consulintel.es> <20190220113603.GK71606@Space.Net> <28fbc2c305c640c9afb3704050f6e8d7@boeing.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <7bf05276-9fb1-f2d3-83a6-ec329e5968ae@foobar.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 20:30:02 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/6.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <28fbc2c305c640c9afb3704050f6e8d7@boeing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/HtYm2xilq8op52p9Y3EENUO9gzY>
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, 20 Feb 2019 20:30:12 -0000

Manfredi (US), Albert E wrote on 20/02/2019 20:19:
> Wait, whether that's partially said in jest or not, NPT was invented
> primarily to add the 16-bit Port ID to the limited 32-bit address
> space of IPv4. But with IPv6, a "basic NAT" would not need to also do
> port translation. Plenty of addresses available. And it would make
> addresses behind the NAT as stable as anyone could want. Just a 1:1
> mapping, with the WAN addresses.
> 
> Doesn't that take away most of the pain, maybe all of the pain? And
> solve this problem?

it certainly does, at the cost of very little technical innovation and a
quantity of pain that most people are already familiar with and are
happy to accept - or even welcome in some situations due to the 
perception of security benefits.

Nick