IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nat66] Fwd: New Version Notification - draft-mrw-nat66-08.txt

JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com> Thu, 03 March 2011 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <jefsey@jefsey.com>
X-Original-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ACC43A6A20 for <nat66@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 12:47:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.853
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.853 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.677, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hyAbUb8DIELY for <nat66@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 12:47:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from montage2.altserver.com (montage2.altserver.com [72.34.52.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21C4E3A69FD for <nat66@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 12:47:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 106.141-225-89.dsl.completel.net ([89.225.141.106]:52910 helo=jfcmsc.jefsey.com) by montage2.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <jefsey@jefsey.com>) id 1PvFS6-0000XS-8x; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 12:48:50 -0800
Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20110303140008.062d69f8@jefsey.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 14:10:19 +0100
To: "S.P.Zeidler" <spz@serpens.de>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
From: JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110303065132.GH20321@serpens.de>
References: <20110228223003.13022.10464.idtracker@localhost> <845A4F08-46E7-48EE-B294-0C8368BAD1CB@cisco.com> <20110302072822.GA20321@serpens.de> <5AC61190-49B0-49B5-ACB1-1FA5082C0380@cisco.com> <20110302203006.GI23030@serpens.de> <4D6EB08E.9000109@gmail.com> <20110302214913.GG20321@serpens.de> <4D6EC293.90608@gmail.com> <20110303065132.GH20321@serpens.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage2.altserver.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Cc: nat66@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nat66] Fwd: New Version Notification - draft-mrw-nat66-08.txt
X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." <nat66.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66>, <mailto:nat66-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nat66>
List-Post: <mailto:nat66@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nat66-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66>, <mailto:nat66-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 20:47:47 -0000

At 07:51 03/03/2011, S.P.Zeidler wrote:
>The benefit of NPTv6 is address stability and provider independence.

and technology independence for IDv6, i.e. domain centric sub-addressing.

>The benefit of PI is address stability and provider independence.

paid by management rigidity (what about ISP rotation possibility and 
mobility) and machine overload.

>The cost of the method NPTv6 applies to get that benefit is that the 
>addresses change in flight. -This- is the issue.

Correct. However, (1) this also can be considered as an advantage and 
(2) NPTv6 is not in opposition with IP usage but complemntary.

>The benefit does not cause any trouble.
>The means by which you reach this benefit may.

Correct. But can you practically alocate a PI to each end user? These 
are two visions of the same internet?
jfc

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email