IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] v6-only (with NAT64) as default network during a conference?

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 23 January 2014 01:42 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 CBBA91A0379 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:42:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 r18nFQkJWb0j for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:42:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og106.obsmtp.com (exprod7og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C8E1A0266 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:42:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob106.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUuBzkGTuzvrTGN2nCZCyePn1RDvjQ9hJ@postini.com; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:42:40 PST
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F24401B82DC for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:42:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB0A190043; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:42:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:42:39 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKr6gn35dWXxmDyuaRVzMfzm508-QBGGz3XnxjsokCXMYOm5ow@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 20:42:37 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <01E2D4B2-ECB1-4601-81A2-15C5D59F42EE@nominum.com>
References: <CAD77+gReP-weV3=_hz-rm0KvDbDjkmsZYc0H_rdQ=R9qpcNhJQ@mail.gmail.com> <24696EC9-3CC7-4518-A029-E385F1C987DD@nominum.com> <CAKr6gn35dWXxmDyuaRVzMfzm508-QBGGz3XnxjsokCXMYOm5ow@mail.gmail.com>
To: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] v6-only (with NAT64) as default network during a conference?
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 01:42:42 -0000

On Jan 22, 2014, at 8:35 PM, George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> wrote:
> naively, it would be lovely if we could do what an RIR has done, and secure alternate SIM for use within a limited horizon and price point, which will do 64XLAT for those of us who have Android 4.x enabled devices.

I don't think doing 464XLAT is interesting on the IETF network, because it looks just like an IPv4 NATTed network to the host (with some NAT traversal technology potentially broken).

The point of setting up an IPv6-only network is to discover what breaks, and hopefully to get people used to using IPv6, if it mostly doesn't break.   The point of enabling NAT64 is that it is more likely to reveal than conceal breakage, and additionally makes it possible to actually use the network, which is still a bit difficult on the completely v6-only network, more's the pity.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email