IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Fri, 13 November 2015 18:20 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.org>
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 293B51B29EF for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:20:06 -0800 (PST)
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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1] 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 Gm55mer0lyr6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:20:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22d.google.com (mail-pa0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C8701B29F4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:20:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pabfh17 with SMTP id fh17so107256680pab.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:20:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=virtualized_org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=FuW5kfTegs8VTS3XjnImB1TCcIFvROVp3qZQtdAE+XM=; b=K1bpvMOcCyrdcBTfTTQ3Nt2MkaVFiQFNaMEmLMBOP4OC2yj9EQNx7Sk5itHQ84BqD9 mFtU7XtNtiXRwILvHrjYWUd8y5nRacC3Wo8ZKu/UItVoIfgSUpwbZds0dZmI3pluSeD9 vyTsATch+3YQTJmO9R3dbTkiLlJUCka9I2WpAvrSgcvW/Y/PwYNxkw/N4D5YMdjeZ95X llW2aKBLmemlZDAotrUQgTITBfjAaUEVh8xGGGr0YN3W/fvqcVD9HFbOBTCELAwsMQV8 0UKjHp2euvqmNPHxk7RhQi485brZTMmG+cTajJV70lPSicaK9vKKq6xuy3ozroX/f57v JAqw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=FuW5kfTegs8VTS3XjnImB1TCcIFvROVp3qZQtdAE+XM=; b=LsZxa1TCJfLjX2mO8fBGwEc37N852lS5Jm7+/rg3UuoY2HD4JKY0GVvDn4NAlVV5C3 rb4azNE2g/IiE5QSV7gDRJ191TwJaqxu6gPHIaXbjyHdqi9Ndluki9MiEow9u4paJkk3 K44piXgRmGu4pDdA9Max9Ley08ehVkq31KUpKVu69yxPhhmw34iDDwBK5OgWMtIKn3sr 5lQzShkLdXhPr884BGasZnBXxtyBUrgQzd+zAXXBZEZ/4T7bniGgVMfvjzfz6edxvhQD YiXaXpLulqcPLhHLVd6sydA/0/KlAy+gbVjpy3gaxcYBHc4ybpeMq6v3xd1xC/38Dq97 Hc6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmuac/NrBW64U+WbTrwZMkohvug0x8KPCvdDAUIi948MT/m0ukCK/QT5AOBmTLfogupxHHS
X-Received: by 10.68.242.105 with SMTP id wp9mr34182024pbc.49.1447438802976; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:20:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:4300:6ed2:4447:a010:e116:9884? ([2601:647:4300:6ed2:4447:a010:e116:9884]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id an5sm21676478pbd.45.2015.11.13.10.20.01 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:20:01 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C71595B9-CE27-4F76-A4A4-BF43552947C2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr1jA_PKcjc7tiC9VhQ9yFM=SRzF6fc+fUzk89Jtb4Bvww@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:20:02 -0800
Message-Id: <CB9FCACD-CEFA-478E-8C9F-1AB4F9B609CC@virtualized.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1511050424410.1055@moonbase.nullrouteit.net> <20151106.063106.74659839.sthaug@nethelp.no> <CAO42Z2x3O8A1XKqN3PTcvM=xpF8W_WNSL1rVhHQ4ZY5HbVG=OQ@mail.gmail.com> <20151106.081425.74651560.sthaug@nethelp.no> <6ED54502-C5D1-4D09-877C-FE283E3EF142@delong.com> <20151112184613.GZ89490@Space.Net> <03C04D1B-86D1-4A5A-A8D3-7508CEC80DE9@delong.com> <20151112194327.GA89490@Space.Net> <95BC3D07-EF27-45A9-A1E0-12F9B43061C7@delong.com> <20151112214819.4EDE63C98D83@rock.dv.isc.org> <CAKD1Yr1jA_PKcjc7tiC9VhQ9yFM=SRzF6fc+fUzk89Jtb4Bvww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/4g2ZTFvZPXyihO7lW06689DmL80>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <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: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 18:20:06 -0000

> I doubt that all but a small fraction of those SMEs actually need multihoming.

Really? This strikes me as IPv4-think. Given the migration to the cloud, the availability of multiple layer 2 infrastructures (particularly in the wireless space) which will likely drive down costs, and the increasing dependence upon "the cloud" for everything from traditional Internet services to the "Internet of Things" (whatever that means), I would think the future will be rife with multihoming for reliability/resiliency reasons, and not just by Es (SM or otherwise), but by residentials as well.

> But even for those that do - we should be working on making it possible to multihome using src+dst routing, not NPT66 or NAT66.

Since renumbering remains "hard" (for some value of that variable), I personally think the largest driver for NPT66/NAT66 is people not wanting to be locked into an ISP and not wanting to bother with the RIR nonsense and cos, not multihoming (currently)t.  When the cost of getting a PI prefix is significantly higher than what you pay for Internet connectivity, PA+NAT is a natural outcome for IPv6, just as it was for IPv4.

Regards,
-drc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email