IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Sat, 08 November 2008 09:36 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F4F3A68A4 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 01:36:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FOwCGmjImOSs for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 01:36:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 591C13A6873 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 01:36:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1Kyk9d-000I0h-3U for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sat, 08 Nov 2008 09:30:53 +0000
Received: from [195.30.1.100] (helo=moebius2.Space.Net) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <gert@Space.Net>) id 1Kyk9X-000I0C-Kt for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2008 09:30:50 +0000
Received: (qmail 11060 invoked by uid 1007); 8 Nov 2008 09:30:45 -0000
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=testkey; d=space.net; b=AUWq+Mas3RHYxFX6ap3RwuNWZW1ClIAC5n8QAR9ifNrnsxQff/IJnHa48j5rgkCb ;
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 10:30:45 +0100
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: EricLKlein@softhome.net
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, Margaret Wasserman <mrw@lilacglade.org>, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, Behave WG <behave@ietf.org>, "Wes Beebee \"(wbeebee)" <wbeebee@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft
Message-ID: <20081108093045.GV89033@Space.Net>
References: <4911B9E7.8090108@free.fr> <BB56240F3A190F469C52A57138047A03014762B5@xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com> <courier.4912CE09.00003CB8@softhome.net> <BB56240F3A190F469C52A57138047A03014765AF@xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com> <6BB0BB30-7AA4-4821-B9EB-4703794F3C87@muada.com> <courier.4914868B.00003F53@softhome.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <courier.4914868B.00003F53@softhome.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
X-NCC-RegID: de.space
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

Hi,

On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 11:18:51AM -0700, EricLKlein@softhome.net wrote:
> This is why we have RFC 4864, and the comment that the IETF does not 
> support NAT in IPv6. We need to find a way to make it crystal clear that 
> NAT is not part of v6 and using it will be non-standard. 

We have seen in IPv4 how well that approach works "close our eyes and
pretend that NAT is not going to happen".

I agree with those posts that said "NAT66 will appear, and the IETF should
make sure that it's done in a way that will have predictible effects on
applications".

As for the specifics: having 1:1 NAT without port rewriting, maybe even
just swapping the first /64 bits, is what should serve the purpose of
"I want to be able to change providers, on a whim, without renumbering
my internal network", while at the same time having fairly little impact
on applications.  

Regarding the "topology hiding" argument - well, people can use privacy 
extentions on their hosts, no?

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  128645

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email