IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] IPv6-Only Preferred DHCPv4 option

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com> Fri, 06 December 2019 14:57 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 B0E691200C5 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 06:57:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 OafdpXnVGyP1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 06:57:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (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 DFF95120020 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 06:57:31 -0800 (PST)
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 m1idF2w-0000JbC; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 15:57:30 +0100
Message-Id: <m1idF2w-0000JbC@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: <CAFU7BAR1JLUZps=CAqJfeQtUf-xQ88RYvgYrPCP+QP0Ter7YFg@mail.gmail.com> <E03BBE6C-3BED-4D49-8F79-0A1B313EFD9D@apple.com> <28594.1575483729@localhost> <7ac18a46-31d9-74cc-117a-0fd908413aac@gmail.com> <m1icmif-0000JrC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAFU7BAThtF=Fio_CZFPA+0D7GBZbzpgXMQ5kBiSK5XKi29vkJw@mail.gmail.com> <m1idAT1-0000L9C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <20191206123936.GP72330@Space.Net> <m1idEJQ-0000KPC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <20191206143831.GQ72330@Space.Net>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 6 Dec 2019 15:38:31 +0100 ." <20191206143831.GQ72330@Space.Net>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 15:57:30 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/hwxGOTbNpCjjVm0TPYxGF21cD7A>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6-Only Preferred DHCPv4 option
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, 06 Dec 2019 14:57:33 -0000

>What a horrible way!  Forcing your users behind a NAT!

It's a legacy protocol. If users want a routable address, they can use
IPv6. This is only for connecting to less advanced parts of the internet.

(I have to admit there does also seem to be a lot of NAT without IPv6)

>What's the rationale for forcing NAT44 on your users?

I think you provided the rational earlier: running out of IPv4 addresses.

In any case, NAT64 is also NAT. For users, there is not a big difference 
between NAT44 and NAT64. In my opinion, NAT44 is better than NAT64, but the
difference is not big.

>(Speaking of a certain dual-stack ssid, why are we offering public v4
>there?)

Possibly because there is no other use for those addresses :-)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email