Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

[Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]>]

On 2015-11-05 7:45 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> But anyway: that is history now. IMHO we need text in the current 
> draft that not only states that ULA+NPTv6 has drawbacks, but actually 
> summarises them. And states that the IETF has not defined NAT66, and 
> summarises the additional drawbacks that ULA+NAT66 would bring. I 
> believe that most of the information about the drawbacks is already 
> documented, in RFC 6296 itself, RFC 4864, RFC 2993 and maybe 
> elsewehere. There is a good set of references in RFC 6296. However, I 
> don't think any of those references discusses the load balancer 
> drawback. It is mentioned in a different context at 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7098#page-10. As it happens, that 
> describes a case where NPTv6 is definitely less harmful than NAPT. 
> (When we say NAT66, are we referring to NAT66 or NAPT66?) 
These are good points, however,

  how do we constructively provide objective information as to the 
technical drawbacks of a function which is not fully defined (re: 
NAT66).  I heard it noted this week that folks needed to differentiate 
between NAT66 and NAPT66 (as an example) at mics to then provide further 
input to the discussion (in v6ops).  This lack of definition (of NAT66 
and/or its variants) makes it difficult to make a full constructive 
argument (as we will need to keep repeating/expressing what we mean by 
NAT66 in each instance , or we just hope everyone has the same reference 
points - which is unlikely)

I can see how we can make the points against NPT66 since we at least 
have that documented.

regards,

Victor K



> Bing already indicated that the authors will add more or less what I 
> suggest. That's really the only change needed, IMHO. I'll save a 
> detailed re-review for the next draft. Brian 
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops