IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"S.P.Zeidler" <spz@serpens.de> Wed, 02 March 2011 21:48 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 083B73A68D7 for <nat66@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 13:48:35 -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=[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 9xohu1+pFBuH for <nat66@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 13:48:34 -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 1EE563A68D5 for <nat66@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 13:48:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from serpens.de (spz@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by serpens.de (8.14.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id p22LnHJG029133 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 2 Mar 2011 22:49:26 +0100 (MET)
Received: (from spz@localhost) by serpens.de (8.14.4/8.12.11) id p22LnEjl024219; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 22:49:16 +0100 (MET)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 22:49:13 +0100
From: "S.P.Zeidler" <spz@serpens.de>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110302214913.GG20321@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4D6EB08E.9000109@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: NAT66 HappyFunBall <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: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 21:48:35 -0000

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?
because they have a problem with the addresses being stable and provider
independent?

> We've known for 15 years
> that this is bad design, but it hasn't stopped us doing it.

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email