Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC

"Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <> Wed, 07 August 2013 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E297D21F91CA for <>; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 07:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.301, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tVEFEFwsL24g for <>; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 07:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EDA521F9302 for <>; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 07:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=9855; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1375885469; x=1377095069; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=oGlIdbWxAeL4kCTzIlnChAcf1N+RycdLi1TD8cMkirE=; b=jr+t39mhEU6BMifhhPro5+cm6Riya3bNWOKmx0Zpq+/acagKBNtZ5vpX gK7yn0kMkkENIx33edCBvJrbTvgQDzzrdaM+vX2dzFNp7PlZOhauNjqau +h7Wo5i0S+5bfKxd1vovEMtGNGFYW0w+BsnQXsbACQBJ4ToAFUmioreJ2 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.89,833,1367971200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="244653918"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 07 Aug 2013 14:24:28 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r77EOSLG005127 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 7 Aug 2013 14:24:28 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 09:24:27 -0500
From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC
Thread-Index: AQHOk3k0iEs+n1KrYk++vIe4m7g1OpmJzGHw
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 14:24:27 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_97EB7536A2B2C549846804BBF3FD47E1131292C8xmbalnx02ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 14:24:35 -0000


You have a very valid point about documenting the source-destination routing on the same 'foot' as NPT6.

And of course, we are in agreement on NPT6 breaking applications (probably less though than NAPT)


From: Lorenzo Colitti []
Sent: mercredi 7 août 2013 16:20
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
Cc: Fred Baker (fred);
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <<>> wrote:
-       Having the internal network up when DHCP-PD is failing because WAN link is down (at least they keep ULA and loose only their GUA), this should be mentioned in our I-D

I think we all agree that ULA + GUA is an accepted use case that should go into this document as well. Are you saying that ULA-only should to into this document as well? I don't think there is consensus on that.

-       Having a simple and cheap way to do multi-homing, search about multi-homing, load-balancing, ... for SMB and those boxes uses RFC 1918 inside + NAT towards two ISP or two links (xDSL & 4G)... Not all SMB will get a PI space and will run BGP.

That's why we're working on source+destination based routing, which is a much better solution than anything involving translation. and since this is an IETF document, I think it should document src+dst routing (which is gaining consensus and has a lot of work going on around it in various working groups) over ULA-only, whose only reason for existence is "it's similar to what we do in IPv4, which we all hate".

-éric (and YES I dislike NAPT for breaking apps, and making security worse)

NPTv6 breaks apps too. For example, it will break anything using libjingle (e.g., Google video chat).