IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft

EricLKlein@softhome.net Mon, 10 November 2008 15:27 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 8F6C03A68BA for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:27:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.58
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.743, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 Bz5SP-jLcAgO for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:27:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5E853A6833 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:27:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KzYfZ-000B5R-0w for v6ops-data@psg.com; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:27:13 +0000
Received: from [66.54.152.27] (helo=jive.SoftHome.net) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <EricLKlein@softhome.net>) id 1KzYfR-000B4B-KP for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:27:10 +0000
Received: (qmail 18202 invoked by uid 417); 10 Nov 2008 15:26:25 -0000
Received: from mambo- (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.2.15) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 10 Nov 2008 15:26:25 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 417) by softhome.net with local; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:26:25 -0700
References: <4911B9E7.8090108@free.fr> <BB56240F3A190F469C52A57138047A03014762B5@xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com> <courier.4912CE09.00003CB8@softhome.net> <BB56240F3A190F469C52A57138047A03014765AF@xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com> <6BB0BB30-7AA4-4821-B9EB-4703794F3C87@muada.com> <courier.4914868B.00003F53@softhome.net> <9937716B-A667-4FB6-8337-9596AD356901@muada.com> <courier.4917F518.00002B4D@softhome.net> <20081110143243.GI89033@Space.Net>
In-Reply-To: <20081110143243.GI89033@Space.Net>
From: EricLKlein@softhome.net
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, Margaret Wasserman <mrw@lilacglade.org>, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, Behave WG <behave@ietf.org>, "Wes Beebee \\\"\\(wbeebee\\)" <wbeebee@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:26:25 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sender: EricLKlein@softhome.net
X-Originating-IP: [62.219.175.130]
Message-ID: <courier.491852A1.000070E6@softhome.net>
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

Gert Doering writes: 

> Hi, 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 01:47:20AM -0700, EricLKlein@softhome.net wrote:
>> Now the problem will be getting consensus across the various WGs that seem 
>> to have taken up beyond what v6OPS did and agree to make such a statement. 
>> I am sure that we now have Behave and Softwires DHCPv6 (and others?) 
>> looking into NAT as there is still a perception that NAT is needed even 
>> after Site Locals were depreciated in RFC 3879 which became an RFC back in 
>> September 2004. 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand why NAT and the depreciation of site-locals 
> have any deeper relationship? 
> 
> ULAs exist.

Site Locals addresses were very similar in functionality to RFC 1918 
addresses, that was apparently why they were created. Now people are trying 
to revive the patch known as NAT into v6 when it is still not clear why they 
are needed beyond "that is how we always did it" solutions. 

If RFC 3879 and RFC 4864 are not detailed enough as to why local only 
addresses are not part of v6 lets do a proper need and gap analysis and then 
design a solution to what is really needed.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email