IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Tue, 22 March 2022 18:34 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 B4AD83A1043 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 11:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 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, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=space.net
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 rb74tKWP1tyb for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 11:34:22 -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 DDB863A10B4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 11:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=space.net; i=@space.net; q=dns/txt; s=esa; t=1647974062; x=1679510062; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=DiIGqq2wO5PXwU9tMMJX3L1/N0Y19DF19u3PATIRrt4=; b=EDGNxxuOH9GFJ3SNgve+LWts4bPvc+UCwJycvj4GlGEjzH5uiLhaIFb9 HMNhhbD02SGSVrStLK7dUtqIEUFXaYdgn/C/HXVbfYzy52fWZ2w6y4CFd dutO3wAWMc3ph801Dn7j6QrrMTfW5x3YOQpXNmDV+8yvrqklMXUdtuo2m v/5wb9BLnpADVreVwA7IfEbAoLPKfMiRXTU9ZHsgYfCHpS+/hpeaT8j/F 4EgEv7/zeK8226BablcqcingeEvQzuzGifwJDuSAzURr7hOLTB6ckhyIU F6UX008pIWtWKKBOCFtNlMYC+yniQ9d9Xcyyri+eZ5Ru3yHpDla194q1/ g==;
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; 22 Mar 2022 19:34:16 +0100
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D50240CA3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 19:34:15 +0100 (CET)
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 6C5A2406DD; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 19:34:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: by moebius4.space.net (Postfix, from userid 1007) id 65FBA11738E; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 19:34:15 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 19:34:15 +0100
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: Simon <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Message-ID: <YjoWp5aMqNtZG2w5@Space.Net>
References: <52661a3d-75dc-111a-3f23-09b10d7cb8d4@gmail.com> <A72CDDDB-CDCE-4EAF-B95E-997C764DB2C4@gmail.com> <9175dc32-45c1-e948-c20a-3bcc958b77b9@gmail.com> <A4DDC829-A355-43A0-82FD-0480C2AFC3BA@thehobsons.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <A4DDC829-A355-43A0-82FD-0480C2AFC3BA@thehobsons.co.uk>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Or1dStF6D4kAAy2XxTmALt6m7zo>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input
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: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 18:34:35 -0000

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 05:47:32PM +0000, Simon wrote:
> Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
> 
> > The reason why I prefer "host has multiple GUAs" better, in theory, is
> > that it gives the *user* more control on what he wants - like, "I can
> > run my bittorrent via the cable ISP, and SSH out via LTE", by selecting
> > the corresponding source IP = selecting the outgoing ISP.
> 
> Flipping that around, what if there are good business reasons to
> route certain traffic via certain routes ? Users will always pick
> what ???works best for them??? and ignore any instructions they are
> given - and not to mention most IoT stuff probably won???t even
> offer any options in that regard.

This is "Home" vs. "SoHo" vs. "more enterprisey" networks.

In a home network, and to some extent also "very small company" networks,
there is usually nobody who does the "good business reasons to configure
a router in a certain way" - so, having these controls on the users's PC
sounds like a great thing.

In a slightly more actively managed, I agree with you, these controls
move towards the network edge, namely "the router".

> One upside (and I think it???s the only upside) of NAT is that the network admin can set the policy of which traffic uses which link - so, for example, routing some traffic via a fast link and other traffic via a cheap link; or just routing certain traffic via one link to avoid contention with other traffic (a common way to make VoIP work reliably in the presence of not-unlimited-bandwidth links).

Agree.

> That???s not to say I???m any fan of NAT - but IMO that is one area where it does actually have a benefit.

Nasty remarks aside, I find NAT (NPT66) a useful tool.

Having NAT forced on me (carrier-grade IPv4 NAT style) is not what I like.

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