IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Wed, 04 November 2015 20:14 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
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 4CC921B33EB for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:14:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.498 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 963L_ns8mfLp for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:14:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yk0-x22d.google.com (mail-yk0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::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 4159D1B33DB for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:14:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ykdr3 with SMTP id r3so93016968ykd.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 12:14:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=cw7GjLisnDg9kqGYfS6M6cJfisQzq+Qe0pTPOFbKt+I=; b=rJyMhmT+xK0Uk+c3ZTbo4gi2zPrgd0oLoTTUD2ftfjL3nlGWFTBmGe4QBySGhBbkiC 1Z6XOCCp6rCQrKTTiymzEUTnigib1d7kaxA5mb7xT9+RSDFYSWqL43nv+Olenc1oAqh+ vtMntDj87ElToE0FyFBzrUnIDo4fO5P6Xh21WGOhgPyir3BKt1WDGY1ZADIgK7+difO6 F8KO9N35ocNDWvIRB7Sngp9UvTN3u4iuAYfpyOmLoBT00RqtPnpfFN1f9t9GCtYCUyaw YPJ2wGYMhIIpEcrsiLhJlmugvimC+9hWdYECZC1TwbiRhXnydyuZ6hKAnOZ2INwtNfwx mFpQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.158.198 with SMTP id h189mr3791991vke.102.1446668049488; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 12:14:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.103.67.194 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:14:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.103.67.194 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:14:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20151104195254.GW70452@Space.Net>
References: <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> <0EE48C9B-801D-4670-8D02-248789E2F411@umn.edu> <50027DBA-C4C2-4679-8D1C-2992BE7C3B75@delong.com> <20151104170711.GV70452@Space.Net> <ADA388DF-1E4D-43E4-B2EC-7D3E1B93FCD0@delong.com> <20151104195254.GW70452@Space.Net>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 07:14:09 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2wq4qtUuVLMF2hLkJH268Aij8L=5uX+vkRKbbZ-reZtiw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11425cf2329ff90523bca70e"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/4p3rztL2dKznKHRJnY0OhqSmeKU>
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 20:14:12 -0000

On 5 Nov 2015 6:53 AM, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 04:37:44PM -0300, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > >> I actually agree with what David says below. However, I???d like to
make sure that EVERYWHERE we document any form of IPv6 NAT, we also
document that it is considered harmful.
> > >
> > > "That some people in IETF consider it harmful"
> > >
> > > Please do not speak for me.
> >
> > Are you really claiming you can make a case that deployment of NAT is
> > not harmful? I???m very skeptical that such a case can be made.
>
> Widen your mind :-) - and indeed, I am making this case.  Multiple
> different scenarios where NAT is making life much easier (or enabling
> a solution at all that might not be otherwise possible).
>

Are people who use it "successfully" aware of the limitations it imposes
i.e. those described in RFC2993?

Something working doesn't mean it works well, or that the costs imposed by
it are immediately obvious or possibly ever obvious if they're externalised
costs, that you may indirectly pay (e.g., periodic "bubble" packets to keep
NAT sessions alive so that VoIP handsets can receive calls when they're
behind a NAT)

> And none of this is the trivial case of conflicting RFC1918 IP address
> usage in enterprise VPN scenarios.
>
> Or the case of destination NAT used for load-balancing...  (still NAT,
> even if not N:1 source NAPT).
>

Breaks PMTUD because a unicast address isn't being used as a unicast
address - an address to identify a unique destination/host.

The PMTUD problems would go away if the LB terminated the TCP connections -
which has also then restored the unicast address = unique (single)
destination property.

Regards,
Mark.

> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A.
Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email