Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com> Fri, 25 October 2019 12:44 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.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 178A312087A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 05:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] 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 nJOXT_VOXFH6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 05:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) (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 3993F120874 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 05:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) (Smail #157) id m1iNywd-0000KmC; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:43:55 +0200
Message-Id: <m1iNywd-0000KmC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <m1iNIFE-0000IwC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <d1b6855d-bde9-7b53-4809-0846bb9772e4@si6networks.com> <CAO42Z2x7vudujw5t++obry56g=VNjQXXTHFK8pBPk0jmk78Bcg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJoHkZ8pTjszP0vw4BjX0HUhmPa6wJONzdy2JEm5iqAfBUvjRg@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2wCYi4KWTEz1hUSPVr9+hu8GaHRkPuvQQ2P00knvnPaaQ@mail.gmail.com> <848BA3B3-36B4-4C42-86D0-88759BC45D5A@employees.org> <A61279DA-4678-4A10-9117-6CA227AE2FA5@cisco.com> <A90AD47E-00E2-4EAB-8BD8-142CC10A6B6F@employees.org> <m1iNv5U-0000KUC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <E273241D-9C35-4E07-9525-DF7FA786F419@employees.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:22:20 +0200 ." <E273241D-9C35-4E07-9525-DF7FA786F419@employees.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:43:54 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/_34mG68C_Wi5zu4s62hJ8yjehSo>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds
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: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 12:44:04 -0000

>a home network with ephemeral addressing stuck behind a firewall.
>what is the point of IPv6 over IPv4+NAT? what value does IPv6 bring?

In the case of, for example, youtube and netflix, the advantage is that
high volume flows are not going through the ISP's CGNAT.

In the case of certain banks that support IPv6, the advantage is that
there is no risk that multiple households will share a single IPv4 address.

In any case, it doesn't matter how much benefit IPv6 brings over IPv4. We
are out of IPv4 addresses. Time to get rid of IPv4.

>exposing external addressing in the internal network, combined with 
>exposing network layer addressing to the transport and application 
>layers is one of the bigger short-comings of IPv6.

There are all kinds of problems with IPv6. But I don't think we want to wait
for a resign of IPv6 or the transport and application layers.