IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Is NAT66 a help in migration to IPv6?

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Tue, 01 December 2020 06:41 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
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 EB0E93A0B6D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 22:41:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 x5xVbk80OliB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 22:40:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 480C93A0B6C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 22:40:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:8164:e592:5e1:9fe6:cf05] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:8164:e592:5e1:9fe6:cf05]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B23ED280947; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 06:40:48 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Is NAT66 a help in migration to IPv6?
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <8a37e3ea48b0451bb9a84ce4658bc8bb@huawei.com> <5bc4ca5e-03e4-fce1-4d80-b8e10e4a3b75@gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <697f254b-7884-84b5-a4e2-1fa742adad9d@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 03:36:15 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5bc4ca5e-03e4-fce1-4d80-b8e10e4a3b75@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/bTz_sW_8li6kXfSdDvLSojkUF5o>
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: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 06:41:01 -0000

On 30/11/20 16:51, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Answering the question in the subject field: No [RFC2993] [RFC4864] [RFC6296].
> 
>> IMHO: no NAT66 -> no progress for IPv6 in Enterprises. Because redundant connectivity to Carriers is needed very often.
> 
> It is, and that's why the failure of SHIM6 is very sad. But the real failure is the reluctance of enterprise operators to do what comes naturally in IPv6: if you have two providers, run two prefixes everywhere [RFC8028].

In all fairness (and sadness), I don't think RFC8028 is widespread. So, 
for all practical purposes, IPv6 multi-prefix/multi-router support is 
broken.

RFC8028 should be a MUST in the Node Reqs -- and I do mean "MUST" ;-)

I also think that there's stuff in RFC8028 that should be developed 
further or made more explicit.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email