IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] IPv6-Only Preferred DHCPv4 option

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Fri, 06 December 2019 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <gert@space.net>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3347120041 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 06:38:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 xDsTYZCXLEtc for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 06:38:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mobil.space.net (mobil.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:81::67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77BBB120020 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 06:38:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81841411B6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 15:38:31 +0100 (CET)
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
Received: from moebius4.space.net (moebius4.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::251]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7374E4105A; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 15:38:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: by moebius4.space.net (Postfix, from userid 1007) id 64E4069729; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 15:38:31 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 15:38:31 +0100
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Message-ID: <20191206143831.GQ72330@Space.Net>
References: <CAFU7BAR1JLUZps=CAqJfeQtUf-xQ88RYvgYrPCP+QP0Ter7YFg@mail.gmail.com> <E03BBE6C-3BED-4D49-8F79-0A1B313EFD9D@apple.com> <28594.1575483729@localhost> <7ac18a46-31d9-74cc-117a-0fd908413aac@gmail.com> <m1icmif-0000JrC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAFU7BAThtF=Fio_CZFPA+0D7GBZbzpgXMQ5kBiSK5XKi29vkJw@mail.gmail.com> <m1idAT1-0000L9C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <20191206123936.GP72330@Space.Net> <m1idEJQ-0000KPC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GW2aGKJs6Oq6raWk"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <m1idEJQ-0000KPC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
X-NCC-RegID: de.space
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/DjssP9x9GFh1fr27NqHQcv1g9LY>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6-Only Preferred DHCPv4 option
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 06 Dec 2019 14:38:36 -0000

Hi,

On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 03:10:23PM +0100, Philip Homburg wrote:
> >"number of IPv4 addresses in the pool" comes to mind.
> >
> >Like, 80% of all hosts are fine with IPv6+NAT64, so why provision a large
> >enough subnet to cover 100% of all expected hosts if 20% will do?
> >
> >IPv4 seems to be somewhat in short supply these days.
> 
> With a few exceptions, just about any DHCP pool I come across these 
> days is using RFC 1918.

What a horrible way!  Forcing your users behind a NAT!

> Are you running out of RFC 1918 addresses in your pool? Or is the setup
> that you give publicly routable IPv4 addresses to all dual stack hosts
> and want to only put hosts that support NAT64 behind NAT?
> 
> In that case, what's the rational for providing dual stack hosts with public
> IPv4 addresses?

What's the rationale for forcing NAT44 on your users?

(Speaking of a certain dual-stack ssid, why are we offering public v4 
there?)

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email