Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 25 October 2019 12:53 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1006412086F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 05:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VoXW5tRsYJ8E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 05:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 899AE1200B5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 05:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [IPv6:2a01:79c:cebd:47d8:4dd1:333a:19d7:ed3c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6F8254E11AD9; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 12:53:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B3A1FEE85B; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:53:43 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3594.4.19\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <m1iNywd-0000KmC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:53:43 +0200
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <49A6064C-3AA0-4AA6-B78E-ED8404D35B97@employees.org>
References: <m1iNIFE-0000IwC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <d1b6855d-bde9-7b53-4809-0846bb9772e4@si6networks.com> <CAO42Z2x7vudujw5t++obry56g=VNjQXXTHFK8pBPk0jmk78Bcg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJoHkZ8pTjszP0vw4BjX0HUhmPa6wJONzdy2JEm5iqAfBUvjRg@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2wCYi4KWTEz1hUSPVr9+hu8GaHRkPuvQQ2P00knvnPaaQ@mail.gmail.com> <848BA3B3-36B4-4C42-86D0-88759BC45D5A@employees.org> <A61279DA-4678-4A10-9117-6CA227AE2FA5@cisco.com> <A90AD47E-00E2-4EAB-8BD8-142CC10A6B6F@employees.org> <m1iNv5U-0000KUC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <E273241D-9C35-4E07-9525-DF7FA786F419@employees.org> <m1iNywd-0000KmC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3594.4.19)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/0eXVTj4X5GtHoBra7-EgDwlwqMk>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 12:53:48 -0000

>> a home network with ephemeral addressing stuck behind a firewall.
>> what is the point of IPv6 over IPv4+NAT? what value does IPv6 bring?
> 
> In the case of, for example, youtube and netflix, the advantage is that
> high volume flows are not going through the ISP's CGNAT.

how is that an advantage for the end user?
it might be for the ISP. but that's the entity that cannot give stable addressing in the first place...

> In the case of certain banks that support IPv6, the advantage is that
> there is no risk that multiple households will share a single IPv4 address.

that's a solved problem. security is done at a higher layer regardless.

> In any case, it doesn't matter how much benefit IPv6 brings over IPv4. We
> are out of IPv4 addresses. Time to get rid of IPv4.

if IPv6 provides no benefit over IPv4 then why?
32 + 16 > 128.
or if we allow IPv6 to have no benefit over IPv4 I could rather say.

>> exposing external addressing in the internal network, combined with 
>> exposing network layer addressing to the transport and application 
>> layers is one of the bigger short-comings of IPv6.
> 
> There are all kinds of problems with IPv6. But I don't think we want to wait
> for a resign of IPv6 or the transport and application layers.

The changes in the transport and application layers are already happening (e.g. QUIC).
There are already "redesigns" of IPv6. Take ILNP.

I'm not the one proposing an IPv6 redesign. This is a response to the proposals of violating a fundamental expectation of stable addressing in IPv6.

cheers,
Ole