Re: [shim6] Exit selection [New Version Notification - draft-mrw-nat66-08.txt]

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Sun, 13 March 2011 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Original-To: shim6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: shim6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D85F3A6BA6 for <shim6@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Mar 2011 14:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 4j8dWisxF50d for <shim6@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Mar 2011 14:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:4038:0:16::7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF56F3A6B80 for <shim6@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Mar 2011 14:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from macpro.10ww.steffann.nl (unknown [IPv6:2001:610:6ce:1:224:36ff:feef:1d89]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C7AF200A; Sun, 13 Mar 2011 22:23:44 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <733F86F7-54F7-4544-B139-5F534F143DA6@apnic.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 22:23:44 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E4E83F81-BEF1-41C0-97BF-08107901758F@steffann.nl>
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> <4D6FF098.6010600@gmail.com> <A3C0405F-F5E1-4911-A67B-CB3FCD153B29@free.fr> <4D7689CC.7060409@gmail.com> <4D76A5FF.2020704@uclouvain.be> <4D76C461.30506@gmail.com> <C3AC5E50-1E3F-4381-A0A4-B5023EBA529B@free.fr> <AANLkTi=Yej0=a1q7GejBGBCjXJQrLA90J9+xpcimTuXr@mail.gmail.com> <D7244E10-B305-45F3-9395-1C8C701D7A08@free.fr> <733F86F7-54F7-4544-B139-5F534F143DA6@apnic.net>
To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: shim6-wg <shim6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [shim6] Exit selection [New Version Notification - draft-mrw-nat66-08.txt]
X-BeenThere: shim6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SHIM6 Working Group Mailing List <shim6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shim6>, <mailto:shim6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/shim6>
List-Post: <mailto:shim6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:shim6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shim6>, <mailto:shim6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 21:22:25 -0000

Hi Geoff,

> From my memory I believe it was because some folk  thought that a) unicast reverse route filtering would be prevalent in IPv6 and that b) clients could not negotiate filters with their provider.  But is a) true? and is b) really true? Frankly I'm pretty sceptical that this is the case and it concerns me that this is a case of over solving.

From my personal experience here in The Netherlands: a) yes, b) yes. At least for home users and small/medium sized businesses. A lot of them use cheap DSL based internet access, and they do uRPF for IPv4 and refuse to deploy an IPv6 service that can not do uRPF. And because the service is cheap, the ISP has no budget for b)...

- Sander