Re: [v6ops] Are we competitive?

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

It may be evident to you and me, but it’s not necessary evident to
everyone. Furthermore, you need to discuss NAT66, if you have any hope of
showing that NPT is a superior solution to NAT66. The idea that NAT66 will
go away if we just don’t talk about it, is utterly false.

The point that I and others are trying to make is that NAT66 exists and it
needs to be talked about. Do you, I, and most others in this conversation
think there are better solutions in almost all cases, sure, but you don’t
convince anyone else of that fact without discussing NAT66.

Thanks.

On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 04:54 Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Fernnado,
> You are right that people are not always logical.
> But for the "NAT66 against NPT" the choice is evident.
> IMHO: It is possible to prove by logic.
> Let's try.
> If NAT is inevitable then let it better be NPT.
> Eduard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fernando Gont [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2022 11:48 AM
> To: Vasilenko Eduard <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Cc: IPv6 Operations <[e-mail]>; Xipengxiao <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Are we competitive?
>
> Hi, Eduard,
>
> On 11/8/22 04:46, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
> > Hi Nick,
> >
> > If no use case for NAT66 specifically
> >
> > Then I propose never mentioning it again.
> >
> > For a few NAT cases that I have in mind (like MHMP environment)
> >
> > NPT is much better.
>
> Comparing NPT with NAT66 is a bit like comparing a steak with a burger.
>   People probably don't eat burgers over stakes because they are better,
> but rather because there are other properties that seem attractive -- e.g.
> "you know what you are getting", "tastes the same everywhere", "you're used
> to it", "it's fast", "you can probably buy it nearby", or the like (not
> necessarily prioritizing the same properties that other people might
> prioritize)
>
> In this case, any folk that can get his/her problem solved by solving it
> with what he/she already knows, with well understood properties, will
> probably do it that way.
>
> Example: I ran into a VPN deployment (access corporate stuff) where IPv4
> connectivity was RFC1918/NAT as expected, and where the v6 part was
> ULA/NAT66.
>
> * Did it solve the problem that it was meant to solve? - Yes
>
> * How would we have changed such deployment if NAT66 was removed? --
> Probably global IPv6 + a stateful (diode-like) firewall.
>
> The setup felt familiar to the network folks, and at the end of the day
> was acceptable for the security folk (me) -- "win"-"win"... so let's spend
> our time on a problem we actually had, or things that warranted more
> attention.
>
> Going back to the beef analogy: If you are into the meat business, you
> probably want folks to be able to pick among burgers and stakes, as opposed
> to go for, say, vegetables, because they can't get their quick-and-tasty
> burger. :-)
>
> P.S.: Apologies for the (possibly questionable) analogies ;-)
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> e-mail: [e-mail]
> PGP Fingerprint: 7F7F 686D 8AC9 3319 EEAD C1C8 D1D5 4B94 E301 6F01
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================