IETF Logo Mail Archive

[v6ops] 464XLAT -- Re: NAT debate (Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios)

Lencse Gábor <lencse@hit.bme.hu> Fri, 22 February 2019 10:27 UTC

Return-Path: <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
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 00C60129524 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 02:27:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 gteiBn7x3N_K for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 02:27:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frogstar.hit.bme.hu (frogstar.hit.bme.hu [IPv6:2001:738:2001:4020::2c]) (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 1933B129532 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 02:27:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.119] (host-79-121-38-138.kabelnet.hu [79.121.38.138]) (authenticated bits=0) by frogstar.hit.bme.hu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x1MAQsHe052724 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:27:01 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from lencse@hit.bme.hu)
X-Authentication-Warning: frogstar.hit.bme.hu: Host host-79-121-38-138.kabelnet.hu [79.121.38.138] claimed to be [192.168.1.119]
To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <6D78F4B2-A30D-4562-AC21-E4D3DE019D90@consulintel.es> <20190220213107.GS71606@Space.Net> <019c552eb1624d348641d6930829fd1f@boeing.com> <CAKD1Yr0HBG+rhyFWg9zh0t3mW486Mjx9umjn+CRqAZg4z9r0dg@mail.gmail.com> <20190221073530.GT71606@Space.Net> <CAO42Z2wmB2W52b4MZ2h9sW5E9cQKm-HRjyf--q8C26jezS7LXQ@mail.gmail.com> <a73818d31db7422b99a524bc431b00ed@boeing.com> <CAO42Z2z9-48Gbb_Exf+oWUqDO=axSLpZBtqeDcxkAoFq5OziGw@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S3624hnGauG1HaSWPMvQw0t2Q5R3gb8W4R8w3kuK7dcrWQ@mail.gmail.com> <1F07F2BB-2F37-4D12-9731-7892DF4E3D88@consulintel.es> <1470063a-db4b-d2fc-a709-68e30736fbed@si6networks.com> <CALx6S36K5v9gusorEvj_uJjW4YwgERGdoWZOABREMpnqhJWJPw@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR04MB4009E6096E8CF525931D46A5DD7F0@DM6PR04MB4009.namprd04.prod.outlook.com> <CALx6S36_aOy3273zGM+26z+04xF2q4_iBfj6LkFjX3qvuJZERw@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR04MB40096241EB14D0526F7131CDDD7F0@DM6PR04MB4009.namprd04.prod.outlook.com> <CAD6AjGRh1z9+N6K423e5kcPFceDXA8CcBX6EJ4uzv80SC_VW-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lencse Gábor <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
Message-ID: <4eac4cf8-a231-2221-e390-86ff55f63d64@hit.bme.hu>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:26:52 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGRh1z9+N6K423e5kcPFceDXA8CcBX6EJ4uzv80SC_VW-g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------A3EB70BEA06FF0D80391CAAC"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.101.0 at frogstar.hit.bme.hu
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Received-SPF: pass (frogstar.hit.bme.hu: authenticated connection) receiver=frogstar.hit.bme.hu; client-ip=79.121.38.138; helo=[192.168.1.119]; envelope-from=lencse@hit.bme.hu; x-software=spfmilter 2.001 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.2.10;
X-DCC--Metrics: frogstar.hit.bme.hu; whitelist
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 152.66.248.44
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/KjWllF3VvILlXJlusD6z5kffWT0>
Subject: [v6ops] 464XLAT -- Re: NAT debate (Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 22 Feb 2019 10:27:09 -0000

Dear Cameron,

2/22/2019 5:08 AM keltezéssel, Ca By írta:

[...]
> +1, i have had a good experience removing stateful devices for the 
> majority of flows from a large mobile network over the last 5 years as 
> we transitioned for 464xlat.   No downsides.

However, 464XLAT also contains Stateful NAT64 (as PLAT). Have you 
experienced any problems with that? (E.g. bottleneck, no scale up, etc.)

Full disclosure:
- I am soliciting your experience for our draft "Pros and Cons of IPv6 
Transition Technologies for IPv4aaS", available at: 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-02
- I personally think that 464XLAT is a good IPv4aaS solution, I am just 
playing the devil's advocate.

Best regards,

Gábor Lencse

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email