Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider operational input]]

[Ed Horley <[e-mail]>]

To bring things back into focus. I believe the goal of the submitted
informational draft was to identify the "Unintended Operational issues with
ULA" (which is the title of the draft) so that it was clear what structural
problems exist with ULA currently. It does not propose any fixes, I believe
that would be a separate but important discussion (well, a yelling
match apparently). I am specifically interested if anyone has any
documented and verifiable configurations that either counter the points
made, disprove the points made, or prove false the points made in the
submitted draft. For those that have not read it yet you can find it here:
https://datatracker-ietf-org.lucaspardue.com/doc/draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula/
or
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula-01.html

Once we agree on what the problem space is, I believe it makes it a bit
easier to talk about what to actually fix, if anything. I believe that was
the goal Nick had originally with this, but he can confirm that I imagine.
- Ed

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 7:38 AM Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The difference is that NAT44 made things better. NAT66 arguably doesn’t.
> Pretty clearly there is a better alternative for the specific pci case
> we’ve been discussing.
>
> This doesn’t mean people won’t do nat66 out of habit anyway, but it will
> cost extra and add no value, so I don’t see any reason why it would become
> and remain a best practice.
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 10:16 David Farmer <farmer=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 6:02 PM Mark Smith <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 at 07:37, Xipengxiao
>>> <xipengxiao=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > My point is, given PCI DSS 4.0 (what Jen wrote as PCR DSS 4.0), we
>>> should tell enterprises they no longer need NAT. But if some enterprises
>>> still insist, respect their decision.
>>>
>>> Ignore them. IPv6 doesn't solve any problem they have, and adding NAT
>>> to IPv6 still won't solve any problem they have, because IPv6 still
>>> won't solve a problem they have.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Even government mandates to get enterprises to adopt a networking
>>> protocol don't work - the Internet is supposed to be running CLNS by
>>> now as mandated by governments around the world. (I expect Vint Cerf
>>> was being nice while working on this rather than truly believing OSI
>>> would take over.)
>>>
>>> Explaining the Role of GOSIP
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1169.html
>>>
>>>
>>>  It's more important to get enterprises to use IPv6 ASAP, than to
>>> insist that they use the "right" IPv6 solution.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Why is it important to get enterprises to use IPv6 ASAP?
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mark.
>>>
>>
>> Ignore credit cards and enterprises, that's your advice for IPv6?
>>
>> So, no one using IPv6 wants to get paid for anything? Or, are you
>> suggesting we maintain a quaint IPv4 network in the corner, so we can do
>> credit cards and can get paid?
>>
>> As for enterprises, Google and AWS are enterprises, are you suggesting
>> they should be ignored too? Most of the valuable things on the Internet are
>> run by enterprises.
>>
>> Supporters of IPv6 need to very much care about enterprises; We need them
>> to make their content available via IPv6. We need them to enable IPv6 on
>> the Internet-facing parts of their networks.
>>
>> Do we need them to enable IPv6 on their internal networks, maybe or maybe
>> not. However, if enterprises are not comfortable with IPv6 why would they
>> enable their content over IPv6?
>>
>> I'm not suggesting we have to do NAT66 or even NPTv6, however, I think we
>> should have something to tell those doing NAT44 today and want to maintain
>> an internal private network. Maybe ULA with application gateways and
>> proxies instead of NAT. But I don't think the internal private network
>> model is just going to go away, too many people are comfortable with it.
>>
>> Furthermore, ignoring NAT44 from a standardization point of view worked
>> so well the last time. "Ignore them, and they will go away," didn't work
>> last time and it's not going to work this time either.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> --
>> ===============================================
>> David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
>> Networking & Telecommunication Services
>> Office of Information Technology
>> University of Minnesota
>> 2218 University Ave SE
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/2218+University+Ave+SE?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>       Phone: [phone]
>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
>> ===============================================
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>


-- 
Ed Horley
[e-mail] | [phone]
Advancing Cloud, IoT, and Security with IPv6
https://hexabuild.io
And check out the IPv6 Buzz Podcast at
https://packetpushers.net/series/ipv6-buzz/