Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC

Lorenzo Colitti <> Tue, 06 August 2013 02:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DE3421F9E35 for <>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 19:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QvTm9tuSvmy8 for <>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 19:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22d]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1F3121F9E48 for <>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 19:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id m1so7824639oag.4 for <>; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 19:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=+nSqYgw6ilZrFdeBrmLSFVf+wNhMlzb2CdVre2lfKwk=; b=BlzUD09yoAmFikvPKu4vG2WTRAVS9Dd7+TcAdN31vgvqK2qqn7falxKj33MhLYqeDp l3hqYoV9GM9entINq2lknChFFEEkEQCF96H+q8NZB3GwvFkCNAadAKRmvEdPZWrDdaMu 1og/Beb0y02WBznlj8EJQepXF26zu5DAxFlLo8N24+q5OFKelIaAChqwui1CCsavFlKM mEZA/LsM3X8e9koLw9pUy+f8Kpf7AYaPdTMFj9FxzJvBl/HGR/x6irBvaeMbDGkQo99+ +dz/nBg8/SGndJ/25VlRJa9YbP0Mc0YWyEn7W09/sz8WiD1S6KeSW5+vFYbBLRScHwqm +HwA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=+nSqYgw6ilZrFdeBrmLSFVf+wNhMlzb2CdVre2lfKwk=; b=gmUZvyVZWvZlk3uFBEfj9eQITqPBcEa5weuJOwMrUP+MTVVcIvUJMLnnSu1ikffnXK zQY1j+cwAqQHdpGFGTjBhEMxxiQ31McRN64w8wH3JQSw25cfcXRDXl80xsvysY+oTVT+ l/iH9dKGjnFS5zY4FPdKQtUbCcJzcvyZr8Pbx11bywUM7eA7dXk4UuPxHRDQEwqes2ML c4r/DmVeBGJNgIboyQL6RkB/73mcUTw7dGWa3tVkX3wQvHf7SeuuEcy1FmxKzOvMsgOB tevAMRinTaPWgB+X4fXbCacOG6bYKRAQE3R5gCvY240fZGdfbnV1SJ6H00c6EpOA1MXz qwZQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id s5mr58288igd.6.1375754590191; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 19:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 19:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 11:02:50 +0900
Message-ID: <>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013cc1c4a5b36c04e33dd3f1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl6fKLMfN7Oj8pe8sR6xMkKwUmSjcFVroh5ztRESXHfBDc1KnFytz5zLtqOxe4oDrekAEW+fHO7oaOmb7WIa5NMWGh/Ad4OLrgIdpfUTBU2rjGngrB8ezrHo/qwu+3dLYUTd5ELKIp3k+GWvAIqWdE3g0V4CYUppaqLmfNphGc+KUyswQY1MNdM5T4l73jpnFPZU3cv
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 02:03:11 -0000

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <> wrote:

> > NAT creates problems for applications not only in the stateful case, but
> in the stateless case as well, because with NAT the client must be prepared
> for a situation where it does not know its own address. This complicates
> peer-to-peer networking applications such as video chat.
> I'm not going to argue one way or the other. The substance of my comment
> related to an address that was not intended to be globally reachable. our
> thought there?

But if it's not indended to be globally reachable... then why is it behind
a NPTv6 box? I'd argue is that it *does* need to be globally reachable, but
"only for certain traffic". For example, "TCP/443 replies from the Windows
Update server".

The point is that when people say, "X will never do Y" sometimes it turns
out that "never" just means "in the next six months", and what ends up
happening is that they need to deal with additional complexity once Y
becomes a requirement.