Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Wed, 05 August 2015 09:31 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 7D08A1B2E40 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 02:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -113.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-113.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_74=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 pwJhB3o4IKXR for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 02:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D53361B2E39 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 02:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3484; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1438767088; x=1439976688; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=OZi6/DUCBvQBwOvy9Q/zId+NehqIddkahitGwjLW4sw=; b=ID7TkpCiJ9lGZq/DuFT4B0ij6btGMYjfQhv7VaUZDCldsfCnSy3H4+pe 1Frks+wcQsc1XY90T5GPD1KbGfR0pV+0E4Ip6PivO4SdlyuJPLfUB4S+W hhJDOhqsCVv1Rk/UxqzEz9sAiapwFsjOgRg0Q6twOZYyjjk8Z0DA9+N/5 8=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 833
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BjAwBs18FV/5ldJa1bgk5NgT0GvHEJh30CgT44FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQjAQEBAwF5BQsCAQgEARMuMiUCBA4FDogYCMpKAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF4tPhQgHgxiBFAEElH0BgjmBW4g/mV8mg31vgUiBBAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,615,1432598400"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="175696545"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Aug 2015 09:31:28 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-010.cisco.com (xch-rcd-010.cisco.com [173.37.102.20]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t759VSaZ026632 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 5 Aug 2015 09:31:28 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-010.cisco.com (173.37.102.20) by XCH-RCD-010.cisco.com (173.37.102.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 04:31:27 -0500
Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (173.37.183.85) by xch-rcd-010.cisco.com (173.37.102.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 04:31:27 -0500
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.173]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 04:31:27 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability
Thread-Index: AQHQz2GAVCXvIiHBekyI47eTl5Er2g==
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 09:31:26 +0000
Message-ID: <134E3A1A-CC0D-4129-A0D8-0C5C3179E6C5@cisco.com>
References: <201507061147.t66Bl1AE028312@irp-lnx1.cisco.com> <D1D96418.5E52E%wesley.george@twcable.com> <CAKD1Yr2p0QjVRR2GehrM-vuoQjqXKNK-YKynUmRFPMfHgALtWg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr2p0QjVRR2GehrM-vuoQjqXKNK-YKynUmRFPMfHgALtWg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [173.37.102.16]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_12CABB1B-2B61-428F-8335-53750C7A8C6F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/VI8KzM8oNxTEI5_A7GmffdWNZks>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability
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: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 09:31:30 -0000

> On Aug 5, 2015, at 1:13 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>; wrote:
> 
> Unfortunately NAT66 *is* a credible alternative, and implementations definitely do exist. I know for sure that Juniper ships a fully-stateful NAT implementation on the SRX (and I don't mean NPTv6, I mean fully-stateful NAT44-style address+port NAT), and I think I heard that Cisco does too.

We actually have a couple of implementations, in the ASA firewall product, and the ASR.