IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Wed, 04 November 2015 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 53DB41B308F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 06:40:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.309
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.309 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 HNQp_ed0dpmE for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 06:40:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs-m.tc.umn.edu (vs-m.tc.umn.edu [134.84.119.120]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E22731B30B8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 06:40:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-f175.google.com (mail-io0-f175.google.com [209.85.223.175]) by vs-m.tc.umn.edu (UMN smtpd) with ESMTP (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 08:40:21 -0600 (CST)
X-Umn-Remote-Mta: [N] mail-io0-f175.google.com [209.85.223.175] #+LO+TS+TR
X-Umn-Classification: local
Received: by iody8 with SMTP id y8so55278791iod.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 06:40:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=oT3XlLSepD21PNVo6Qzx3H9to/HGz3rBnILSWVBwl4A=; b=Z6/ppRMZKUOhiSSkXMKu2of7MUo//8NnbAsTHqRGh1VAmfZv5bUJv4zw746t/7XZ7t CU2mMcFre7ZUHNuP2aKYq34yMiutGLySkUMdAymgS9y6rRnm9mG838nkSigthvnmVp7o xdsM/8lG0Gdskclq9D6XOuBnCj9xlD0iGy2Ic=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:message-id:cc:from:subject :date:to; bh=oT3XlLSepD21PNVo6Qzx3H9to/HGz3rBnILSWVBwl4A=; b=Gfupol+WYJ5eTweJi/34ViZWhtuUHDqACaKVNZlzAmA37p5WU6ZAntwZQJkhz5nBK9 H8jH7QoO0u7nQAw5dCz65csJT7wpyNG83yTHsv/v9ukJeGnGTpNKhdlKkpYRj3nnqDL+ 7r0dHYvQqeIlsHF6sSWFGPukuj2cQOBFaFotp98RRam34N0B81ASW/mYoPhqU5d5vNoA 5ynclhxQ9a+mnMFYawUUwltf0ARF6xPXZXnP05WJJI9QyhkfdNb0G1pE0UuCEYMybAC9 av3ojTt8c5SiF7DNPWq0zwc6n2IYEPnlorgIcEEM7eW21gexXwfx1dDWpL+EFNm39KNb ajXw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk5eJW6ch76nPcda3dnMEnRBTc5UAxgmedqiToBKiv1LruPugt2ZPsh9uatkGcCfm2yEWWfM0r05AB2cYcoBHeVAQq7IKrRMJam5aIRar33JbtVoGIL+oscLAKT4l1SxmbprPpb
X-Received: by 10.107.136.106 with SMTP id k103mr3292466iod.187.1446648020914; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 06:40:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.107.136.106 with SMTP id k103mr3292442iod.187.1446648020687; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 06:40:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:449:8400:5b37:ed22:128b:ec37:8b83? ([2601:449:8400:5b37:ed22:128b:ec37:8b83]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g12sm9360923igh.2.2015.11.04.06.40.19 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Nov 2015 06:40:19 -0800 (PST)
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45C231921A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <5637D854.2090203@bogus.com> <5637E84B.5090001@gmail.com> <5637EB69.1080608@umn.edu> <03358859-8078-489E-835D-3B4D324381BE@delong.com> <20151103204237.GJ70452@Space.Net> <CAO42Z2xen4gCfkJphZYKfjff5ZsEn_jOf5V16OtYOYNw2VKVAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3Qn48eQ1Q4VovCsr_S2+RADRZKzi9qBDoh8G2w6Be+=g@mail.gmail.com> <20151104024731.0DCDE3BC3CBF@rock.dv.isc.org> <D25FB58B.C9B04%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <20151104104208.GL70452@Space.Net>
In-Reply-To: <20151104104208.GL70452@Space.Net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <0EE48C9B-801D-4670-8D02-248789E2F411@umn.edu>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (13B143)
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 08:40:18 -0600
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/2BeD8m1oNF_NRYkI0GW5BxDWkrs>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?
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: <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: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 14:40:26 -0000

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 04:42, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 04:36:05AM +0000, Howard, Lee wrote:
>> 2. There is consensus that NPT66 is bad, for some of the reasons give in
>> various NAT44/CGN documents. It might be slightly less bad than NAT66,
>> since it has slightly fewer of the problems given in those documents.
> 
> I don't think there is consensus on that... otherwise we wouldn't have
> published NTP66.

Please don't mistake support for publishing a document as support for a technology.

The only thing I think is worse than NAT66, and the slightly less objectionable NPT66, are a 1000 slightly and subtly different versions of NAT66.  Not publishing a document can ensure we will have those 1000 different versions of NAT66, it will not ensure that NAT66 is not deployed.

I believe our only hope of a world without NAT66 deployed all over the place is to define the beast and explain why we think it is a bad idea.  Until we charter the IEP (the Internet Engineering Police) and/or the IEA (the Internet Engineering Army) the only weapons we have are words and their power to persuade.  

We could try to holding or breath until NAT66 goes away, but all that will lead too is a bunch of passed-out network engineers on the carpet at the IETF Plenary. 

To explain why we think NAT66 is a bad idea, we have to acknowledge it exists.  Just a with IPv4 our failure to define a standard form of NAT, will not prevent the deployment of NAT, it will ensure the deployment of subtly incompatible and worse versions of NAT.  Our only useful way forward is to define NAT66 and explain why we think it is a bad idea.

Thanks.

> Gert Doering
>        -- NetMaster
> -- 
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer                          Email: farmer@umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota    
2218 University Ave SE         Phone: +1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: +1-612-812-9952
===============================================

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email