Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider operational input]]

Again, we're focusing on the wrong thing that is a tangent out of an
example used to describe *why* we need the thing. We need something that is
usable in a dual stacked environment that has similar attributes to ULA. If
everyone here thinks ULA is fine (which I do not believe is the consensus),
great. Let's say that. If not, let's think about how to fix it - or at the
very least update the draft to reflect its limitations. Ideological
soapboxing about the merits or detriment of NAT isn't really gaining any
ground either way. It is a tool in the toolbox. Some folks use it.
Vilifying it is like hating an earthmover because it's not a Ferrari.

nb

ᐧ

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 6:03 PM Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 at 07:37, Xipengxiao
> <xipengxiao=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jen,
> >
> > Thank you for bringing this useful piece of information to light.  I
> hope more people see it:
> >
> > > PCR DSS 4.0 (published in March 2022) does not mandate NAT for IPv6.
> The text has been updated.
> >
> > That said, I very much agree with Kevin Meyer: "If you want more
> Enterprises participating in the IETF discussions and improving IPv6
> uptake, start thinking about meeting them where they are. And to be crystal
> clear - NAT is where they are and where they will be for quite a while".
> >
> > My point is, given PCI DSS 4.0 (what Jen wrote as PCR DSS 4.0), we
> should tell enterprises they no longer need NAT. But if some enterprises
> still insist, respect their decision.
>
> Ignore them. IPv6 doesn't solve any problem they have, and adding NAT
> to IPv6 still won't solve any problem they have, because IPv6 still
> won't solve a problem they have.
>
>
> Earth moving equipment manufacturer: "We think you should buy an earth
> moving front end loader from us. They're great!"
>
> An Enterprise: "We don't need an earth moving front end loader, we're
> an accountancy firm. It doesn't solve any problems we have."
>
> Earth moving equipment manufacturer: "What if we add a backhoe to it?"
>
> An Enterprise: "We're still an accountancy firm, we still won't need
> it. We don't need to move dirt or dig holes. It still doesn't solve
> any problem we have."
>
> Earth moving equipment manufacturer: "Oh, come on! You really should
> buy one! We love our front end loaders. Everybody needs one. What if
> we paint it green too?"
>
> An Enterprise: "Nope. Even though our corporate colours are green,
> we're still an accountancy firm and we still won't need it. We've got
> better things to spend $100K on."
>
>
> Even government mandates to get enterprises to adopt a networking
> protocol don't work - the Internet is supposed to be running CLNS by
> now as mandated by governments around the world. (I expect Vint Cerf
> was being nice while working on this rather than truly believing OSI
> would take over.)
>
> Explaining the Role of GOSIP
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1169.html
>
>
>  It's more important to get enterprises to use IPv6 ASAP, than to
> insist that they use the "right" IPv6 solution.
> >
>
> Why is it important to get enterprises to use IPv6 ASAP?
>
>
> Regards,
> Mark.
>
>
> > XiPeng
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jen Linkova
> > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 12:53 PM
> > To: Simon <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>
> > Cc: 6man list <ipv6@ietf.org>; v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
> > Subject: Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoughts about
> wider operational input]]
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 11:15 AM Simon <linux@thehobsons.co.uk> wrote:
> > > The IPv6 community needs to engage with this other regulatory
> community to get them to bring their standard into the 21st century.
> > >
> > > As long as the PCI standard effectively mandates IPv4 & NAPT then it’s
> going to be an uphill struggle.
> >
> > See my email I sent yesterday. PCR DSS 4.0 (published in March 2022)
> does not mandate NAT for IPv6. The text has been updated.
> >
> > --
> > SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > v6ops mailing list
> > v6ops@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>