Re: [v6ops] Revised texts for ULA #3 NPTv6 Use Case

[Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>]

This is a major improvement.

Owen

On Jun 2, 2014, at 8:38 PM, Liubing (Leo) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Dear all,
>  
> Based on recent discussion, I propose some revised texts as the following.
> Please comment to see whether we can achieve consensus on this issue.
>  
> Many thanks!
>  
> Revised texts in Section 3.2.1:
> “o  Using Network Prefix Translation
>  
>    Network Prefix Translation (NPTv6) [RFC6296] is an experimental
>    specification that provides a stateless one to one mapping between
>   internal addresses and external addresses. [RFC6296] considers translating
> ULA prefixes into GUA prefixes as a use case. Although NPTv6 is not exactly
> the same with the traditional stateful NAT/NAPT (which is discouraged in
> [RFC5902]), it also introduces some similar additional complexity on many
> applications, which might cause applications break.
>  
> So in general, this document doesn’t encourage to use ULA+NPTv6 (however,
> some operational considerations are provided below for the ones who insist to
> use ULA+NPTv6 for some reason). This document considers ULA+GUA as a better
> approach to connect to the global network when ULAs are expected to be retained.
> ULA+GUA is discussed in detail in Section 3.2.2 below.”
>  
>  
> Original texts:
> “o  Using Network Prefix Translation
>  
>    Network Prefix Translation (NPTv6) [RFC6296] is an experimental
>    specification that provides a stateless one to one mapping between
>   internal addresses and external addresses.
>  
>    In some very constrained situations(for example, in the sensors), the
>    network needs ULA as the on-demand and stable addressing which
>    doesn't need much code to support address assignment mechanisms like
>    DHCP or full ND (Note: surely it needs SLAAC). If the network also
>    needs to connect to the outside, then there can be an NPTv6 gateway
>    which is not subject to extreme resource constraints. Especially when
>    a lightweight isolated network needs to add Internet connectivity,
>    this is quite a straightforward and efficient way.
>  
>    This document does not intend to encourage the ULA binding with NPTv6
>    model, since in [RFC5902] the IAB had already gave opinions on IPv6
>    NAT; but this document considers it as an effective approach in some
>    specific situations as described above.”
>  
>  
>  
>