Re: [v6ops] GRASP

Brian E Carpenter <> Sun, 14 January 2018 18:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C48612D85F for <>; Sun, 14 Jan 2018 10:46:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7jYpHnF_lMya for <>; Sun, 14 Jan 2018 10:46:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02731129C6F for <>; Sun, 14 Jan 2018 10:46:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id q2so2163905pll.3 for <>; Sun, 14 Jan 2018 10:46:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=32OiAYbsqDystNhI/0GWxamAKQFYB/COzjciDyZiZHE=; b=ZgacvUaNVqEnlD19lj3nTkv5qQkEaRMyWU6mipD5hVqokLD80R1xMppO7FBFkwxmwd QStTTfSohpEL6RWKJuO27c7LDZwMQ/GIX2AIPXmjNLQQ6qIWwO2zw5T1KwpwMzdl4cnY sjVvBYLJrk1mq/QF8ZpqI66G2/AVf5brdH6DfdvBntsOvVfPrm6M+ULayJb7IqdH9auD NocqscoBK72HxQIe+iei5mUcLlfTBpETocJn3y7aziyNgRX+8uarFp0/Ac8JTt1iPYaK ERvJVq93Ysi9sUgBK4dqf7ZSi74BT9wm+5XYgcxBfh8GBgZ5FgOCKifzMf2uI5hCMvwi vQtQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=32OiAYbsqDystNhI/0GWxamAKQFYB/COzjciDyZiZHE=; b=hzHhKE1ms+iLMUNwlJnXerDiUHg3onQSSG32V1YDVpJED+n1xOe3+bAgri1zaueXpX c0psIYvgs9JLNLYmuDvw2OS7ekTvZNs97oTl7m5qEmeue6CMex6iXZJO5E9urgQpKkcl lMCaimar5IEieyAXcb5tzfjSoRCgOw9TS+QdxU+Aa8+WtAlgDqOjjk2lL0EZG+KNDUzl 6Td50C1h0HR+HvoB4S4LmecpTD1EuWQuMyYs1E5fWeo4mRfAEX4nzo90VDFrnX0HUGOV cGyADcW/2TVfbWeuCtBCiWGL35r7s+R3NoOB6PVP8eqWgiC7jv6ndSLKW8VVml0zKVqh p9fA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytePeksv0cfsxXRveaoYi8zOPkBzA/1bwRubSEBywZtm3UVgtJ/J gmx8WT4tA6elP30sTEQCDmeFAw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBov7yQOGt5LCg2kiO69PlZL6mAUzVeR+BJtwJPURGb332imAZfTAXCCagI4kcNXD5ScxeJXhww==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 70mr1011593ple.221.1515955591231; Sun, 14 Jan 2018 10:46:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:6f17:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:6f17:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id q6sm48623606pgv.72.2018. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 14 Jan 2018 10:46:30 -0800 (PST)
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 07:46:27 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] GRASP
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 18:46:33 -0000

On 15/01/2018 00:12, Sander Steffann wrote:
> Hi,
>> I wonder if it would be better to have the "NAT66" device be the true
>> application end-point for all communications, and then have it
>> communicate with the down stream devices "internally" via a ULA
>> address space, as internal application inter-process communication.
> So, back to using proxy servers then.
> Sander

a) The faulty email quoting in Mark's message made it look as if I might
have been advocating NAT66 - not so, that was James in respnse to me.

b) I don't see using proxies as a step backwards. On the contrary,
with home networks in particular likely to contain increasing numbers
of IoT devices with poor security, proxying a network behind a reasonably
secure device seems like an excellent idea.

c) If James is correct about the attitude of ISPs we (for some sense of
"we") need to do something about it. ISPs are motivated by revenue and
OPEX. How can we make support of prefix delegation more attractive to