IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft

Rémi Denis-Courmont <rdenis@simphalempin.com> Sat, 08 November 2008 10:12 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E00B3A68A4 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 02:12:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rGUS9ES0QxCW for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 02:12:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82F983A6873 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 02:12:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1Kykm4-000KLW-8B for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sat, 08 Nov 2008 10:10:36 +0000
Received: from [2001:41d0:1:a0d6::401:1983] (helo=yop.chewa.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <rdenis@simphalempin.com>) id 1Kykly-000KL0-0X for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2008 10:10:33 +0000
Received: from basile.remlab.net (unknown [IPv6:2002:591b:3aef:0:211:11ff:fe25:e6b4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: remi) by yop.chewa.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEB82C15; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 11:10:28 +0100 (CET)
From: Rémi Denis-Courmont <rdenis@simphalempin.com>
Organization: Remlab.net
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Subject: Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 12:10:24 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9
Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org, Behave WG <behave@ietf.org>
References: <4911B9E7.8090108@free.fr> <courier.4914868B.00003F53@softhome.net> <20081108093045.GV89033@Space.Net>
In-Reply-To: <20081108093045.GV89033@Space.Net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200811081210.25939.rdenis@simphalempin.com>
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

Le samedi 8 novembre 2008 11:30:45 Gert Doering, vous avez écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 11:18:51AM -0700, EricLKlein@softhome.net wrote:
> > This is why we have RFC 4864, and the comment that the IETF does not
> > support NAT in IPv6. We need to find a way to make it crystal clear that
> > NAT is not part of v6 and using it will be non-standard.
>
> We have seen in IPv4 how well that approach works "close our eyes and
> pretend that NAT is not going to happen".
>
> I agree with those posts that said "NAT66 will appear, and the IETF should
> make sure that it's done in a way that will have predictible effects on
> applications".
>
> As for the specifics: having 1:1 NAT without port rewriting, maybe even
> just swapping the first /64 bits, is what should serve the purpose of
> "I want to be able to change providers, on a whim, without renumbering
> my internal network", while at the same time having fairly little impact
> on applications.
>
> Regarding the "topology hiding" argument - well, people can use privacy
> extentions on their hosts, no?

That hides _identity_ not _topology_. Topology hiding is "messing up" your 
subnet prefixes.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
http://www.remlab.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email