IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Wed, 04 November 2015 20:42 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FFDC1A1F16 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:42:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.111
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.111 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 isd2_d8tL-VJ for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:42:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [192.159.10.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0612E1A1EFD for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:42:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.54] (232.149.220.201.itc.com.ar [201.220.149.232] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tA4KfbHP025053 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:41:43 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20151104201901.GA70452@Space.Net>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 17:41:35 -0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A69D1CA5-9753-4032-8223-8B970CB7CB0E@delong.com>
References: <CAKD1Yr3Qn48eQ1Q4VovCsr_S2+RADRZKzi9qBDoh8G2w6Be+=g@mail.gmail.com> <20151104024731.0DCDE3BC3CBF@rock.dv.isc.org> <D25FB58B.C9B04%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <20151104104208.GL70452@Space.Net> <0EE48C9B-801D-4670-8D02-248789E2F411@umn.edu> <50027DBA-C4C2-4679-8D1C-2992BE7C3B75@delong.com> <20151104170711.GV70452@Space.Net> <ADA388DF-1E4D-43E4-B2EC-7D3E1B93FCD0@delong.com> <20151104195254.GW70452@Space.Net> <307C3852-01BA-425E-A556-1ACAEC646EFC@delong.com> <20151104201901.GA70452@Space.Net>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/IsM2pk56S5nXp5mLLP6XqmHIH3U>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 20:42:47 -0000

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 05:12:37PM -0300, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Or the case of destination NAT used for load-balancing...  (still NAT,
>>> even if not N:1 source NAPT).
>> 
>> Unnecessary in IPv6 and not entirely harmless.
> 
> Lots of different ways to build loadbalancer exist, and they all have
> benefits and drawbacks.  Otherwise people would not use all the variants.

So I notice you completely left out all of the other responses. Does that mean that we have consensus that NAT in IPv6 is actually harmful?

Even in the load balancer case, you’ve admitted there are drawbacks.

Owen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email