Re: [v6ops] NAT64 prefix configuration (was: Re: ipv6only-flag-02 security)

Hi Jordi, 

No sure to understand your comment. 

At least, from an implementation standard, modern CGNs and NAT64 are following the same recommendations from the IETF. For example, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7857 inspires from NAT64 (e.g., TCP state machine). 

The address sharing ratio (and ports to be assigned per device/customer) is deployment-specific.   

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> Envoyé : vendredi 14 septembre 2018 23:18
> À : Ole Troan; Fred Baker
> Cc : V6 Ops List; 6man WG
> Objet : Re: [v6ops] NAT64 prefix configuration (was: Re: ipv6only-flag-02
> security)
> 
> Hi Ole,
> 
> I don't think you can compare CGN with NAT64.
> 
> NAT64 is doing a much better and dynamic (on demand) usage of the port of the
> IPv4 address pool. So, it scales much more than CGN. As a consequence, an ISP
> need much less IPv4 addresses for the same number of customers with NAT64
> than CGN, and you don't have many of the problems that CGN poses because the
> restrictions in the number of ports.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de Ole Troan
> <otroan@employees.org>
> Fecha: viernes, 14 de septiembre de 2018, 22:13
> Para: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
> CC: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Asunto: NAT64 prefix configuration (was: Re: [v6ops] ipv6only-flag-02
> security)
> 
>     Fred,
> 
>     Did you post this on the wrong thread? I am not sure how this relates to
> the ip6only-flag draft.
>     Changed subject.
> 
>     > Speaking strictly for myself, all one of me. However, I'm copying v6ops
> in case someone operational will dispute my viewpoint or support it.
>     >
>     > I would expect that if an ISP is offering only IPv6 to the CPE, the CPE
> might well implement both an IPv6 router and a 464XLAT CLAT for IPv4 within
> the LAN. The ISP will never know whether there is actual IPv4 in the
> home/SOHO/Enterprise, other than that the PLAT it presumably implements will
> see traffic. If it's doing CGN, MAP-E, or MAP-T, it is implementing the
> overlay, will be aware of it, and will be paying for it; the 464XLAT model
> means that it doesn't have to think about it (or pay for it) beyond the PLAT
> and its prefix. I'm hearing rumblings from various operators to the effect
> that IPv4 is becoming operationally expensive - one that has been in the news
> recently was Aussie Broadband, but they are in no sense the only source of
> such rumblings.
> 
>     Speaking as one of the editors of the MAP series documents, that’s a
> misrepresentation.
>     PLAT = stateful NAT64 has similar costs and scaling properties as a CGN.
> That is, significantly worse than stateless solutions.
> 
>     > From my perspective, 464XLAT plus draft-pref64folks-6man-ra-pref64 is
> the best case currently on the table. If 6man agrees, I would suggest using
> draft-pref64folks-6man-ra-pref64 at PS to deprecate (make historic/NOT
> RECOMMENDED) RFCs 6147 and 7050. In that, there would be value in a plugfest,
> perhaps at IETF 103 or 104 during the Hackathon, to let various implementors
> demonstrate draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas using 464XLAT+draft-
> pref64folks-6man-ra-pref64 and state their roll-out plans.
> 
>     I don’t know if 6man has a particular view on provisioining of a NAT64
> prefixes. Nor do I know if we should.
> 
>     If you mentioned the ipv6only-flag draft in the context 464XLAT. 464XLAT
> offers a native dual-stack service, and that’s not what the ipv6only-flag
> draft is about.
>     That’s about true IPv6 only links, where there is no IPv4 packets on the
> link.
> 
>     Ole
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>     ipv6@ietf.org
>     Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the
> individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure,
> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be
> considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the
> original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops