Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

["Howard, Lee" <[e-mail]>]

Observation: the use of the words ³bad² and ³harmful² do not advance the
cause of a clearer document or finding consensus. I apologize for using
such words.

We have at least two documents describing limitations of NAT, which are
cited in this draft. I think we have consensus on the way we say it, so
unless you want to propose new words for this document, stop talking about
NAT.

In order to advance this document, we need words describing why NPT66 is
not as good as native IPv6. The only documentation of that at present is
the NPT66 RFC itself, RFC6296 (especially Section 5).

I don¹t recall any arguments against the use of ULA when there is no NAT
or NPT being used. Please send text reminding me.

Lee



On 11/5/15, 5:41 AM, "v6ops on behalf of Owen DeLong"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>
>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Gert Doering <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 05:12:37PM -0300, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>> Or the case of destination NAT used for load-balancing...  (still NAT,
>>>> even if not N:1 source NAPT).
>>>
>>> Unnecessary in IPv6 and not entirely harmless.
>>
>> Lots of different ways to build loadbalancer exist, and they all have
>> benefits and drawbacks.  Otherwise people would not use all the
>>variants.
>
>So I notice you completely left out all of the other responses. Does that
>mean that we have consensus that NAT in IPv6 is actually harmful?
>
>Even in the load balancer case, you¹ve admitted there are drawbacks.
>
>Owen
>
>_______________________________________________
>v6ops mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops


________________________________

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.