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

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>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).