IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"S.P.Zeidler" <spz@serpens.de> Thu, 03 March 2011 06:51 UTC

Return-Path: <spz@serpens.de>
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 88D213A6892 for <nat66@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 22:51:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 iq+lxu0nHVyu for <nat66@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 22:51:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from serpens.de (serpens.de [IPv6:2001:16e0:101:219:280:10ff:fe00:1731]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F373A6908 for <nat66@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 22:50:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from serpens.de (spz@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by serpens.de (8.14.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id p236pen5007937 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 3 Mar 2011 07:51:50 +0100 (MET)
Received: (from spz@localhost) by serpens.de (8.14.4/8.12.11) id p236pY8j016347; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 07:51:37 +0100 (MET)
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 07:51:33 +0100
From: "S.P.Zeidler" <spz@serpens.de>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4D6EC293.90608@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
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 06:51:01 -0000

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?

regards,
	spz
-- 
spz@serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler)

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email