IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft

EricLKlein@softhome.net Mon, 10 November 2008 08:53 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 277253A6904 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 00:53:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.581
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.744, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, 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 9nqsODz-KRtz for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 00:53:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41C533A692F for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 00:53:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KzSRH-0000l6-Ga for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:48:03 +0000
Received: from [66.54.152.27] (helo=jive.SoftHome.net) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <EricLKlein@softhome.net>) id 1KzSRD-0000kh-DC for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:48:01 +0000
Received: (qmail 1169 invoked by uid 417); 10 Nov 2008 08:47:20 -0000
Received: from mambo- (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.2.15) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 10 Nov 2008 08:47:20 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 417) by softhome.net with local; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:47:20 -0700
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> <9937716B-A667-4FB6-8337-9596AD356901@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <9937716B-A667-4FB6-8337-9596AD356901@muada.com>
From: EricLKlein@softhome.net
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: 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
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:47:20 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sender: EricLKlein@softhome.net
X-Originating-IP: [62.219.175.130]
Message-ID: <courier.4917F518.00002B4D@softhome.net>
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

Iljitsch van Beijnum writes: 

> On 7 nov 2008, at 19:18, 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.
>> And this is why I think this draft will cause more harm than good.
> 
> I don't think RFC 4864 is clear enough. 
> 
> If the IETF is serious about avoiding IPv6 NAT, it needs to send out a  
> warning to operators that they WILL have problems if they deploy it.

Agreed. 

Now the problem will be getting consensus across the various WGs that seem 
to have taken up beyond what v6OPS did and agree to make such a statement. I 
am sure that we now have Behave and Softwires DHCPv6 (and others?) looking 
into NAT as there is still a perception that NAT is needed even after Site 
Locals were depreciated in RFC 3879 which became an RFC back in September 
2004. 

Given the fact that 3879 "formally deprecates them, but the deprecation does 
not prevent their continued use until a replacement has been standardized 
and implemented" - I am sure that they will be implemented by some networks 
anyway. (from the abstract of RFC 3879) 

Eric

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email