Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Jordi, *:

Isn't the main reason why we are not seeing more IPv6 in "enterprises" or even "homes"
exactly because NAT (even from rfc1918 addresses to IPv6) does work well enough
that those networks are happy to stick to it ? Why else would we likely have a huge
number of edge routers doing exactly that ?

If we'd overcome architectural purity desires, maybe we find more practical ways
to steer the evolution:

For example, if one can show benefits for e.g.: multihoming to different IPv6 services
by use of (call it what you want) address translation from IPv6 on-site to the different
IPv6 addresses in the Internet - then we might have created an incentive to upgrade from
IPv4 to IPv6 already. That's to me already one step. Its IMHO not creating more NAT
in the process, unless that NAT actually turns out to be providing more benefits for
the users than downsides. But thats just what we have to deal with: actual user
experience as opposed to architectural preferences.

Btw: To me as an end-user, a NAT/FW is great when i can control it (for my edge-network),
and it is terrible when somebody in "the Internet" forces it on me. I have no idea why
we're not even starting to think about these tools from exactly this perspective. Alas
RFC8990 does not recognize this difference.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 10:34:22AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> You’re right. Let’s say it in a different way, as may be my first email was not clear on this.
> 
>  
> I don’t think we want again to repeat the NAT problems, so NPT is not a valid solution for me.
> I think in the future almost every site could want to be multihomed, in some cases “n” links active, many other cases just as a backup.
> This means that renumbering is not (probably) a valid choice in any cases.
> Can we make PI work in such “huge scale” scenario?
> Can source-address forwarding work and solve all that, or we need that and/or something else.
>  
> 
> Only if we solve this, organizations could learn that NAT with IPv6 is not the solution, but something better that provides the same results, and no need to have “private” addresses, because the way NAT is offering a “different” addressing inside and outside is not NAT per-se, but statefull firewalling.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jordi
> 
> @jordipalet
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> El 22/3/22, 10:27, "v6ops en nombre de Ted Lemon" <[e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> escribió:
> 
>  
> 
> Is it really hncp that we needed here?  I think the key tech we need is source-address-based forwarding, and babel i think has delivered that. Granted, getting that into soho routers is a problem. 
> 
>  
> 
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 10:11 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Maybe the terminology is not the most appropriate and we should talk about "organizations", because there are many types of networks that have the same problem and those are not enterprises (such as government sites, NGOs, etc.).
> 
> The problem is the same regardless of the "size" of the organization. The difference is that "today" most SMEs don't have that problem because they don't have PI, but it may turn the same when they realize that not being PI have renumbering issues if changing the ISP. Of course, again, if we talk about a "small" SME, then may not be an issue, they only have 40 or 50 devices to renumber (your mileage will vary), not easy but not "terrible".
> 
> On the rest of Gert comments, definitively I agree, and specially on our big mistake not working further on HNCP.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
> 
> 
> 
> El 22/3/22, 9:31, "v6ops en nombre de Gert Doering" <[e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> escribió:
> 
>     Hi,
> 
>     On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 11:42:12AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>     > I agree with Jordi that multihoming is a genuine impediment. What isn't generally realised is that it's a problem of scale when considering at least 10,000,000 enterprises, much more than it's a problem of IPv6 itself.
> 
>     What is "an enterprise"?
> 
>     My stance on this is that for "largely unmanaged SoHo networks" - which
>     could be called "small enterprise" - dual-enduser-ISP with dual-/48 or
>     NPT66 gets the job done in an easy and scalable way (HNCP would have
>     been great, but IETF politics killed it).
> 
>     "Enterprise that truly need their own independent fully managed network
>     with multiple ISP uplinks and fully routed independent address space"
>     are probably way less than 10 million...
> 
>     Half of them do not want Internet access anyway, just access to their
>     ALGs that will do the filtering and TLS inspection and everything, and
>     then out to the Internet as a new TCP session (= could be done with
>     DMZ islands of upstream-provider-allocated space just fine).
> 
> 
>     We need to work on our marketing regarding multihoming.  "What is it that
>     you get, what is the cost, which of the variants do you want, and why...?"
> 
>     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: [phone]         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     v6ops mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> 

> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops


-- 
---
[e-mail]