IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] 464xlat case study (was reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info)

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 28 September 2017 09:47 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
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 EF5571345EB for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 02:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.233
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 RKqdsbioAukU for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 02:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (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 72347134509 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 02:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id v8S9lqSB001865; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:47:52 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id D3AAE2056BE; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:47:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC95A2053DB; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:47:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v8S9lq0T001868; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:47:52 +0200
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <LO1P123MB01168388285206BB7C26F029EA7A0@LO1P123MB0116.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <b0b09e49-ad0a-4693-d4d0-1e398f244b5d@gmail.com> <71DC2E77-20D3-4EC8-95B1-96070DA135E7@gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b95785b9-65e9-cf8d-eac3-cc922d7fd59d@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:47:52 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <71DC2E77-20D3-4EC8-95B1-96070DA135E7@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/YRMHDKaTQh-yhp9dBM56eTSwLRg>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 464xlat case study (was reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 28 Sep 2017 09:47:57 -0000


Le 25/09/2017 à 21:06, Fred Baker a écrit :
> 
> 
>> On Sep 25, 2017, at 9:08 AM, Alexandre Petrescu 
>> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Excuse me, what do you mean by IPv4 private address exhaustion?
> 
> Several companies, notably Microsoft and Comcast in the v6ops 
> context, and said that they were running out not only of public
> space but, within their networks, private space.

In one company I looked at they didnt run out of public IPv4 space, yet
they preferred to extend their internal network by adding private IPv4
space - reasons invoked relate some times the security of NAT, other
times to other reasons.

Running out of private space is probably not a reason that a reasonable
sysadmin could invoke.  One can not run out of private space.  But one
can mis-design a network - yes.

Alex

  In the CGN context, this
> (in part, there were other considerations) resulted in us requesting 
> an additional RFC 1918-like prefix for the space between a presumed 
> NAT'd private address space and a CGN.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email