IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment

Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net> Wed, 06 August 2014 07:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ross@eircom.net>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7B891B2CAD for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 00:20:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=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 YCEWjuDvhTfZ for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 00:20:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail19.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (mail19.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net [159.134.118.218]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1D8571B2CAC for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 00:20:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 62152 messnum 326814 invoked from network[213.94.190.11/avas00.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net]); 6 Aug 2014 07:20:28 -0000
Received: from avas00.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (213.94.190.11) by mail19.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (qp 62152) with SMTP; 6 Aug 2014 07:20:28 -0000
Received: from mac1.home.ross.net ([159.134.196.35]) by avas00.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net with Cloudmark Gateway id bKLR1o0020mJ9Tz01KLUbg; Wed, 06 Aug 2014 08:20:28 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net>
In-Reply-To: <53E1C587.4000506@fud.no>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 08:20:24 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3EC4EB99-F877-478D-BFE6-959F58127579@eircom.net>
References: <256EAE0B-5C11-42C7-BCA1-CEC7EE6713A7@cisco.com> <53DFD634.4020304@fud.no> <53E0C548.9050706@fud.no> <5C9FC57A-0DA5-4D36-84AE-CF1D6D17FB44@eircom.net> <53E1C587.4000506@fud.no>
To: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/1SvyoSyLNb-Ke3mOvu69dtqEGQQ
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 07:20:32 -0000

On 6 Aug 2014, at 07:04, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:

>> What’s your position on NAPT44 being put in front of an IP service 
>> address pool that used RFC1918 space? Not advocating for that but it
>> would inevitably be tried.
> 
> I find this undesirable for several reasons. From the top of my head:

> For me, deploying NAPT44 seems like a terribly shortsighted effort that
> comes with a number of undesirable technical limitations. At best it
> would be akin to treading water; I'd much rather be swimming for shore.
> 
> All of that said, YMMV; if you or anyone else use NAPT44 in your data
> centres, and are happy with it, then that's great, I have no
> philosophical/"religious" objections to that. I just need an alternative
> for myself, and preferably make it into one that others could use too,
> if they are in a situation similar to mine.

Good, glad that you cleared that up. Include them in the next revision of your draft?  
FWIW I can see this stateless approach being useful to people that have chosen 
to make their DCs IPv6 only but still need to let the IPv4 Internet connect to public
facing servers in it. 

Ross

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email