IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider operational input]]

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Fri, 29 April 2022 20:00 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 46EE2C15E3E8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 13:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=space.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gZTDDnKC6p_U for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 13:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gatekeeper1-relay.space.net (gatekeeper1-relay.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:3:85::38]) (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 BA69AC1595E4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 13:00:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=space.net; i=@space.net; q=dns/txt; s=esa; t=1651262444; x=1682798444; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=PimVWyqH7s0KhflvVd+VTq/mzL3DBYtbHMVAnbUTXgk=; b=GOvafdayRxM8LK6NtPE9h0fdWuMEwHrF5PuW+A3Li1hI+9cSsZvKRvRT fRlAn7HHGVRhoiDiW7h27e7YmYgNhSWSyHqHKCL0DlywUQuwfa3VL5Dzc GNxVdb7iuXP8DqlOSEIGtniLxTHALH8zDjEkUPHvCA4igO+SFy5zD4COi yKVWxn91MosdrdrjBaTzZz6+T93/TmZ3e4XKQk5cfWFyDl3PA0Xjc8i0f B1/U/mpUHcacYTFRjyNBT6XrTunowq5FWcT1SuyOGhoy9hkS+USFyQz7J 0++Q0As0YpEMqgZC9XKrkK95SIckAGgkSL8jfkoAKJhIAQLDFCFjcxi0H Q==;
X-SpaceNet-SBRS: None
Received: from mobil.space.net ([195.30.115.67]) by gatekeeper1-relay.space.net with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Apr 2022 22:00:37 +0200
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D09ED4375D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 22:00:36 +0200 (CEST)
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 B337040C0F; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 22:00:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by moebius4.space.net (Postfix, from userid 1007) id AFDFD1142E9; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 22:00:36 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 22:00:36 +0200
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com>
Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, David Farmer <farmer=40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org>, Xipengxiao <xipengxiao=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man list <ipv6@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <YmxD5IxoUzDoweo4@Space.Net>
References: <CAPt1N1ncVkekecS=dBHSR3WtaEMruy55Udxy0WSMGTgbN24pKw@mail.gmail.com> <CAM5+tA8-Zqka-vZ9jRL3wn0dtfuJj0ECx_k9prwyS2ypisaPtw@mail.gmail.com> <FB031B76-7E88-4824-876F-D1A05F8D2215@thehobsons.co.uk> <CAFU7BAST-oNGpy4JvODDsf=8eS69hV8XCi8OgEHBkkoujRN3Rw@mail.gmail.com> <699f556a3eac41179a80d2cc8749a191@huawei.com> <CAO42Z2wiebCOPmtcEOJ3rOaZEpHE7qFZZTf5KLWybSsL6rOd9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau1FV-uEkX1S7vOEVxggjcNvUVTmokPAEOiapxPTySN-vw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1mk8Qv1anXohCJaiH0WWn-BkS4mr=ffyF0cCaE7CM314w@mail.gmail.com> <YmwoWPB38Pt+EDH4@Space.Net> <626C4137.1020603@jmaimon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5GRP3jnUnjtXDk1R"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <626C4137.1020603@jmaimon.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/IvU14tJaF1juxxQi3RQjxghfJsI>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider operational input]]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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, 29 Apr 2022 20:00:48 -0000

Hi,

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 03:49:11PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 10:36:56AM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> >> The difference is that NAT44 made things better. NAT66 arguably doesn???t.
> > Well, some might disagree on both accords.
> 
> Probably not both together.

I would argue that NAT44 was about the worst that could have happened 
to IPv6 - because it facilitated an IPv4 Internet that works just about
good enough for most consumers out there, and those entities that
think a strict separation of producers and consumers is a good thing,
and "good enough" means "not enough pressure to move to an IPv6-only
world", which means being stuck in a dual-stack nightmare for ever.

OTOH, NAT66 is a useful tool to work around lots of things that the
IETF has not delivered in 25 years, like "good multihoming" and
"renumbering made easy".

So, yeah, I'd disagree with Ted on both accords.

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