Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input

Nick Buraglio <buraglio@es.net> Tue, 22 March 2022 21:50 UTC

Return-Path: <buraglio@es.net>
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 E3CD43A0D87 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:50:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=es.net
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 lKJyJb_xecsg for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:50:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12d.google.com (mail-lf1-x12d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D32C03A0D90 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12d.google.com with SMTP id p15so21321219lfk.8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=es.net; s=esnet-google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=7TzFZvGi6MB/P9dBsR8WXAMpeHpPX9uSyLYrc2cLE6A=; b=SIvMfU89ItZBFyzk1iOYzcxhLf48KOcOUUqIRM7rtL7fthQDu3MgqBZxIgDQInY36T TzElAI6KSAgRTAnPcpP+vIQmCxosqMONuUkkefzHT7aRaMn2e9CnEUbZOW+UnHAZ/nVX 1nBsUmtndVQr64p/R6KgIRljnx9qAieCWLsvJt66xdHDILLKW+5ZPMMbho4pk+Om/Zr7 oz9EH3/9o2YimR9GRsavJ2aFoKhxLCn9Z/3VFqX/p3NitSfhD7Q7qO5Usbk5mVNl6dxU Szis6XZArwslXkPpffTQXs62oWMvRQZSyuYffEUnvDTJYXF/Mp0AbEXxo/DIyIfUToOq PUuA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7TzFZvGi6MB/P9dBsR8WXAMpeHpPX9uSyLYrc2cLE6A=; b=tSPthNJ7b8TF5Iwu52/g/e6kr++Fjq0LcIVVHBSQ13cfcGXLApdqVsC85A5NcJV9tR hUYesBeNha8ViwMAB2Ywjqq4D+g+mP1UKPAKNgR55sZQ799pQoq/VznR2YZI5bWPZOYC olpvHM1j6x0oNNwivqa0UKC2HOEAh8438BQeRH/tZhWQdV0u8QYxCGbWLtj+o+9l0aRH 4IZno+iuO2uDHMYCAgRHtPUDZNJku5Xj0N4YzjWR/1NwG9yIOA4YB6t4F3LEdt0+TjgW U99GT4uw4r15fVgpLA1drQ/QZR8M5beIJ/bmMNlIWv48KusrSXGmdwAMkdPoiLuZVBVi 3BgQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531PwdBtCkyaEXKuFcCUDl3xjCwAFKSLWm67ykkD6lfD9cHseI4u IiPiVhC9CVP3mJuOqUtZAOG69AM/Y+2yNtq7UVEEZ/cbDPcAC9H16uDSBsapJAu3sIsBQEb9g1N WEA3H6+BH3fSxKpGpGAaQhOzgBibCDTPibce6R+6fDoyMiMXemNG/tYhPIl6vfBNpjaDyRgG5FU OJnNNFNEg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJymDtM8EgK5VrAhUr136iKOYZ/SYcWU6QhywH6+iQgVYLNJGZsKsGiB5P7XufpXTxtlST0nt0K1TxCMeQzJTHc=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4adb:0:b0:44a:d01:e2a with SMTP id m27-20020ac24adb000000b0044a0d010e2amr14722804lfp.338.1647985830982; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <52661a3d-75dc-111a-3f23-09b10d7cb8d4@gmail.com> <A72CDDDB-CDCE-4EAF-B95E-997C764DB2C4@gmail.com> <9175dc32-45c1-e948-c20a-3bcc958b77b9@gmail.com> <YjmJQMNgnJoSInUw@Space.Net> <fd17a91f-68dc-92b5-0544-51aefa1b7f08@gmail.com> <CAM5+tA-Wq5O4pjQ++VZQi-FTKZGMRAW-LFc6O5dPOyox4QZDEw@mail.gmail.com> <YjpA4IH/eI5im8DT@Space.Net>
In-Reply-To: <YjpA4IH/eI5im8DT@Space.Net>
Reply-To: buraglio@es.net
From: Nick Buraglio <buraglio@es.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:50:19 -0500
Message-ID: <CAM5+tA-foEATL9uihwD=zoTZ1EvHiwc5k_xKf=GRNYD51REQYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, v6ops@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/nlzGgXH43kzOB9PaJjpGhgvaFOo>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input
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: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 21:50:39 -0000

Sure, I can edit the gai.conf table on a handful of systems, I may
even be able to write some ansible/puppet/chef/cfengine to do that
across 10,000 linux systems, or modify the windows preference using a
policy. That is not solvable in a way (at least that I am aware of) on
something like 5000 iPads or 5000 IP cameras, so we're back to extra
overhead, which translates into person hours, which translates into a
cost center with no cost benefit. What we're talking about is not "is
it technically feasible". It's a barrier of entry. These things make
deployment harder. I see this literally every day in operations and
migration to IPv6.
I don't want to conflate what I am talking about with multihoming.
Multihoming is a different issue that is only tangentially related if
we talk about ULA as an analog for 1918 space and use some kind of
translation, but again, how does that work for IoT devices that have a
non-modifiable preference table, or that have an application that has
its own ULA standard set? It is unrealistic to think that this would
work  for guest systems in dual stacked mode, or BYOD devices at any
scale, either. "You need to edit this obscure default file on your
system" or "run this application that we wrote to change a default to
get on our network" is not going to be a good strategy.

nb






On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 4:34 PM Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 03:12:20PM -0500, Nick Buraglio wrote:
> > ULA is an operational non-starter in the presence of any dual stacked
> > hosts.  Per its design, it just won't ever use IPv6 in any meaningful way
>
> That's just an entry in the gai.conf table, not something unfixable by
> protocol design.
>
> > and that time and effort are better served on adding GUA addressing of one
> > kind or another.
>
> So how does your solution to "multihoming for 10 million enterprises"
> look like, which is less work than fixing ULA preferences?
>
> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279