IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 03 March 2011 19:47 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 5E7A73A6A06 for <nat66@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:47:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 WYK-1XMGZ1Zg for <nat66@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:47:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 423773A6843 for <nat66@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:47:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fxm15 with SMTP id 15so1553403fxm.31 for <nat66@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:48:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=xYOjIe2ndekgqNWmD68V0wdRhWSoK3Z91OHl9MVz3sY=; b=Tq/MaM/f/nlHo9Mrj/+5hIsEPml0UAZrGd7HGRjWnfm93hNAI8v+voJ8YG91XiQ56Q /1alereVyepyGi/FyiCvx5w1aPK1ILRBVhdgMbMJ5mxnGU2DRuNSaBZqjZM8VHZQkx6u R0qMaKl8AlbmrAJ4sl1rkslOY2DtydH6kzTm0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=tOzoSYqbfWHCRVCeOZoND74Bn3tENw7+Ig1gIPaIw843H8dQ726syAltb0AKtitMDg GOSzhLttpAyK/ouxzP1S/fQwwCoEpw6ALD8CJjzLhZnwxwYQYnq+oPWTCEFGdQvSUFe8 DKVwhCUycVLSdENcSiJZwbWWI0Ih/0er3N1xw=
Received: by 10.223.103.12 with SMTP id i12mr1916879fao.43.1299181730107; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:48:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.1.1.4] ([121.98.190.33]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a15sm170433faw.1.2011.03.03.11.48.46 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:48:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D6FF098.6010600@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 08:48:40 +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: "S.P.Zeidler" <spz@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>
In-Reply-To: <20110303065132.GH20321@serpens.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 19:47:46 -0000

On 2011-03-03 19:51, S.P.Zeidler wrote:
> Thus wrote Brian E Carpenter (brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com):
> 
>> On 2011-03-03 10:49, S.P.Zeidler wrote:
>>> Thus wrote Brian E Carpenter (brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com):
>>>
>>>> On 2011-03-03 09:30, S.P.Zeidler wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> Which applications will have trouble with address stability and
>>>>> provider independence, thus requiring you to make the benefits of NPTv6
>>>>> line up with the applications you want to use??
>>>> The usual ones - those that for whatever reason have explicit
>>>> dependency on the IP address of the peer.
>>> i.e. they will have trouble with PI addresses also?
>> No, why?
> 
> I am trying to point out that you (and the draft) are claiming that.
> 
> The benefit of NPTv6 is address stability and provider independence.
> The benefit of PI is address stability and provider independence.
> 
> The cost of the method NPTv6 applies to get that benefit is that the
> addresses change in flight. -This- is the issue.
> 
> The benefit does not cause any trouble.
> The means by which you reach this benefit may.
> 
> You see the distinction?

Of course. PI has the cost of exploding the BGP4 table.
NPTv6 has the cost of destroying address transparency.

Since SHIM6 has neither of these costs, are you surprised
that I prefer it?

     Brian

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email