IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Sat, 08 November 2008 13:52 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 D40A63A69CB for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 05:52:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, 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 f3arFimVDiN9 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 05:52:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EABD43A67D2 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 05:52:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1Kyo7f-000GuX-Hl for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sat, 08 Nov 2008 13:45:07 +0000
Received: from [195.30.1.100] (helo=moebius2.Space.Net) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <gert@Space.Net>) id 1Kyo7a-000Gtb-Dw for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2008 13:45:05 +0000
Received: (qmail 63957 invoked by uid 1007); 8 Nov 2008 13:45:00 -0000
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=testkey; d=space.net; b=TVW0M7NIMxuXCTLEaXqeHFrv5+14Buo7v2DueNagBPievEmyYCNK0ZeF+rVNksq6 ;
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 14:45:00 +0100
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: EricLKlein@softhome.net
Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, 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
Message-ID: <20081108134500.GX89033@Space.Net>
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> <20081108093045.GV89033@Space.Net> <courier.4915760A.00007FB9@softhome.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ikqct/fZAlyRpWN7"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <courier.4915760A.00007FB9@softhome.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
X-NCC-RegID: de.space
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

Hi,

On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 04:20:42AM -0700, EricLKlein@softhome.net wrote:
> I have yet to hear one serious reason why we need NAT in v6 given that all 
> of the requirements that lead to it and have kept it alive for years in v4 
> do not exist in v6 and in some cases using it will break v6 functionality. 

Well, the thing that I keep hearing is "we want to be able to change
providers at our whim and not renumber" (not from "SOHO" customers, but
from "a bit larger networks").

Two possible answers

  - IPv6 PI space ("everybody's routing table gets hit")
  - ULA space inside, NAT66 outside

so what's the smaller evil?  I can't say.

(Regarding the "renumbering" bit: I didn't write "we can't renumber" - 
but for a largish network, renumbering can incur much much higher costs
than just finding a vendor that provides a NAT66 box... and as soon as
enterprise customers are going to ask vendors about it, one of them will
build one.  Well, I think you could already do that today with BSD 
pf(4)...)


From an ISP point of view, I'd actually prefer NAT66 before IPv6 PI.  

Of course "everyone of our customers will stay there forever, so there's
no need to ever renumber" would be much preferred, but I think this is
about as unrealistic as assuming that there won't be NAT66 boxes.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  128645

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email