IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Thu, 05 November 2015 01:03 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 085751B3498 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:03:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.11
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 12t9SxCrMEsU for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:03:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [192.159.10.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94CC41B2E47 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:03:14 -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 tA51169J012132 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:01:10 -0800
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C9AAF3BE-D023-4687-B4F1-BC99AC61BE30"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2zGroikjHtKqExLbMtcbO-=F4Lc5KU7RvRO23ODmRYWEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 22:01:04 -0300
Message-Id: <5B8E7768-BEF4-4D65-B7CC-D7DCCA096529@delong.com>
References: <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> <A69D1CA5-9753-4032-8223-8B970CB7CB0E@delong.com> <20151104205641.GD70452@Space.Net> <CAO42Z2zGroikjHtKqExLbMtcbO-=F4Lc5KU7RvRO23ODmRYWEQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/M3mbdfRGK7bQRycQoJPBZNW-yo4>
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: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 01:03:18 -0000

Gert,

There are a number of tools which are harmful and yet still in wide use for a variety of reasons.

I’m not saying NAT is prohibited.
I’m not saying the IETF should say NAT is bad. (NAT is bad, but the IETF probably shouldn’t say so.).

Nonetheless, even in the cases where NAT is the best solution, it remains harmful. At this point, I believe
that to be documented fact rather than opinion.

Think of it in the same way that, for example, aripiprazole is necessary and often the only choice of drug that works for some people’s particular conditions, yet almost universally does cause some harm in the process. Usually the benefit outweighs the drawbacks or it isn’t prescribed. Nonetheless, it is considered “harmful”.

So it’s interesting that while you yourself have acquiesced that NAT causes harm, you still claim not to agree that NAT is harmful.

Owen

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 6:43 PM, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5 Nov 2015 07:57, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 05:41:35PM -0300, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> > No.  It is a tool, which has uses, and drawbacks.  Not having the tool
> > available would be harmful.
> >
> > WE HAVE NO CONSENSUS THAT NAT IS HARMFUL.  For those that are a bit slow.
> >
> 
> Next time you're about to resort to insults, don't.
> 
> Your not going to convince Owen and I by calling us idiots.
> 
> (And you'll also have to overcome my 20 years of seeing and encountering NAT limitations over and over again, including the very first time a customer of mine wanted to use it in 1995 because one of the earliest NAT implementations couldn't NAT NetBIOS).
> 
> > > Even in the load balancer case, you???ve admitted there are drawbacks.
> >
> > Sure.  Breathing has drawbacks.
> 
> > Gert Doering
> >         -- NetMaster
> > --
> > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
> >
> > SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> > D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > v6ops mailing list
> > v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>
> >

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email