IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 22 March 2024 09:36 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.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 979A4C14F5FF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=employees.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yzLlSzAKECbM for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from proxmox01.kjsl.com (proxmox01.kjsl.com [204.87.183.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75A73C14F60D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from proxmox01.kjsl.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox01.kjsl.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 09293E113C; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 09:36:43 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=employees.org; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type :date:from:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=prox2023; bh=ebf3A6RUkcAJfBjv gKvE13Iqrpd5mJKUJi/YM4xWaKg=; b=bQX5gpz21gZpWFJXQwe0m12tTKxkS7EF 2ed9f8ykx1BIvYsh/ns6JjmzpuGd1+XtHo+5cQp+n89Ch3P7+LrBD0eaK2XHzpbE 8yxcdGQI2Fbz1CXPygiFd397ns9mJNy85bDjj9IKmDa5ipGBBQ/LRcGjNhbI33wD u1zT7BRl9bzPTKmZQlA4KSipLr+Y5fZ8C1VfyokQLmzJHLmHMtPadSWlgITtgjE/ Q+mvCtCpR2j+lm2lFWsjnBLO2k5rRkobRKudZXIMUXAiHzeW8Mh8Wd87k/sIriKY TX6NIwFrNYAYg+MX8endA5B8KS6TpiUFOOdpBN9Pm6yuTpZOROmsEQ==
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by proxmox01.kjsl.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id DD57BE04C4; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 09:36:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2001:4650:c3ed:37a:1e9f:54b:1ba9:d468]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C6EF04E11BDA; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 09:36:41 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.500.171.1.1\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <CADmxuPEtbaehHwJhxfuhWzTeiZ7sHsveTrm69U2R67Swd1n0Bg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:36:29 +0100
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5ED8B6B1-991F-4D45-A3C3-C6BE20B00518@employees.org>
References: <df333346-f108-3782-0ff5-4bd85d7b49ac@gmail.com> <015F13BE-32F7-4C8B-8C86-C9153FE9C9E9@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr3dJ0EcMVPEGz-oHzNdWzJO1fE1u73Xxiw44BObuYTXbQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADmxuPExdq93HFRBpk6EeJdZsXOFQFDwB2EfVvkM++CDPb2gkg@mail.gmail.com> <CADmxuPEtbaehHwJhxfuhWzTeiZ7sHsveTrm69U2R67Swd1n0Bg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Naoki Matsuhira <matsuhira.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.500.171.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/IJV00tth1gYlw5Pkm_b-j7qzLiU>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] Adoption call for draft-bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 22 Mar 2024 09:36:48 -0000

Naoki,

> I don't support adoption.
> 
> When NAT was first introduced, I experienced a lot of trouble. There may be fewer problems these days, but I think the reason is that applications are built with NAT in mind. In other words, I think it limits the ability to create applications.
> 
> I think it is undesirable that something works in an environment without NAT but does not work in an environment with NAT. If this happens, should I fix the application or the network?
> 
> I think it would be desirable to regain an environment where applications can be created without restrictions, and I think that would make the Internet better.
> 
> Even though IPv6 can eliminate this restriction, I do not agree with restricting applications with NPTv6.

Could you say a little more about _how_ NPTv6 restricts applications?

Cheers,
Ole

PS: And for this discussion let’s assume NAT64 doesn’t exist, which of course restricts any IPv6 application to be equivalent to sitting behind a NAPT44.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email