IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Follow-up Discussion - draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices - NAT

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com> Wed, 21 October 2015 13:16 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C87691A6FFB for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2] autolearn=ham
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 5VxR7wFYLxmg for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8455D1A6FFD for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #91) id m1ZotFs-0000HDC; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:16:36 +0200
Message-Id: <m1ZotFs-0000HDC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <56250655.2040701@jvknet.com> <56254C98.2010501@gmail.com> <75421D8D-362D-4D47-AB56-B8CB7639CC51@magma.ca> <56258D8D.2010702@gmail.com> <0CC12E67-C9FB-4AC3-8E2F-5482BB942688@employees.org> <m1ZoU43-0000FdC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <562696FF.7040501@gmail.com> <B93E8B66-5BA1-4188-B557-4FDB81005E8A@employees.org> <m1ZoeV6-0000GyC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <4C481BE7-7301-4750-98D9-4F36EEB094BC@employees.org> <m1ZorjS-0000FsC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <EF0C3D7D-820C-4AC9-B646-AC2E1D716165@employees.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:59:17 +0200 ." <EF0C3D7D-820C-4AC9-B646-AC2E1D716165@employees.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:16:33 +0200
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/psULbVXq11bF1ejYuA3O464dHQg>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Follow-up Discussion - draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices - NAT
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:16:45 -0000

In your letter dated Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:59:17 +0200 you wrote:
>while you might not think the technical issues are hard, although I 
>encourage you to read the source code of MOSH and MP-TCP, there is a big 
>implementation gap and deployment problem here.

I'm not trying deal with Section 3.1.6 of RFC-3582. In a 'traditional'
IPv4 context with multi-homing and NAT this doesn't work. IPv6 with NAT
would also not satisfy the transport layer transparency.

Note that both mosh and mptcp have problems that are non-local. Mosh because it
is yet another security protocol that needs to be validated and deployed.
Mptcp because too many middle boxes destroy end-to-end transparency of the
internet. And of course, mptcp also needs to be deployed.

In contrast, playing with the preferred lifetime of prefixes is completely
local to a site.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email