IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: there _is_ IPv6 NAT - just look for it

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 18 March 2014 07:42 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 5482E1A066D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 WdrHOQq8EZmp for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:42:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x230.google.com (mail-we0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 873821A010D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:42:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id x48so5541447wes.35 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=yXln8CEXFK4r1TpWZ/57alD+ObvXtm/Zod4YKRVzxD0=; b=j2K0XSuqJk+t4KKixUnUnm9H1kJhzJPiOviiGwxgqEE0GPFjTlTGp4MV6l2X80tP8x qpp5hihd2FlgypryiFBBkis5eXssoiizjqjAKnbS35tofolOoZmFDMyUsavTwz0npV76 lE7mok6E5dQadH2s5wI7lDPsVbPv6G9C56P14V8r2fxspu85UQiVIvd4WhOdgzInr2fD c1rrKDcx8I1MOiDhtjhVyBE34FUCaIM8aSly5JdQZqp2pq2SLIN71GWiU6oueKCuFJUY o6tKidvRBLHWZh5lOO2z8UcnIjM9xLXkK70UQSGVFMhtBg3e5RIX0Ox4WBcrw73XbSir vDZA==
X-Received: by 10.180.187.16 with SMTP id fo16mr13268828wic.26.1395128553813; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.6] (cpc8-mort6-2-0-cust102.croy.cable.virginm.net. [82.43.108.103]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id uq2sm44891980wjc.5.2014.03.18.00.42.32 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5327F8ED.40306@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 20:42:37 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.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> <5324A1FF.3010109@gmail.com> <53255C09.7060900@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E66716481189E49E8@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <CAKD1Yr3sA4_4y18KBmBGOmY=PLOn1W4_F-3cgKyAfp4BQMUa=Q@mail.gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E66716481189E4C3D@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <CAKD1Yr00jqpL+i02veXfvB2reOGmZJGr=QONe+4wSnscJbjAJQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr00jqpL+i02veXfvB2reOGmZJGr=QONe+4wSnscJbjAJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/KoEMh2-Us4O6iexCnLgG-g22zdA
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <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: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 07:42:44 -0000

On 18/03/2014 15:58, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Manfredi, Albert E <
> albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> wrote:
> 
>>  Residential ISPs who are stingy with their prefix,
>>
> 
> You can't fix that particular problem. If you allow shorter than /64, some
> stingy ISP is going to assign you shorter than /64. That becomes an arms
> race until you get to /128 and then you have to implement NAT anyway.
> 
> 
>> mobile hotspots, and any of a host of new applications, such as in-vehicle
>> communications and IoT in general.
>>
> 
> Is there a reason why this stuff can't be bridged at L2?

I don't buy luxury cars, but I have read that such cars have
multiple on-board LANs using diverse (non-EUI-48) technologies
even today. I imagine the same will apply in many IoT scenarios.
Therefore, L2 bridging is not the answer.

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email