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

[Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>]

I actually agree with what David says below. However, I’d like to make sure that EVERYWHERE we document any form of IPv6 NAT, we also document that it is considered harmful.

Owen

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:40 AM, David Farmer <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 04:42, Gert Doering <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>>> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 04:36:05AM +0000, Howard, Lee wrote:
>>> 2. There is consensus that NPT66 is bad, for some of the reasons give in
>>> various NAT44/CGN documents. It might be slightly less bad than NAT66,
>>> since it has slightly fewer of the problems given in those documents.
>> 
>> I don't think there is consensus on that... otherwise we wouldn't have
>> published NTP66.
> 
> Please don't mistake support for publishing a document as support for a technology.
> 
> The only thing I think is worse than NAT66, and the slightly less objectionable NPT66, are a 1000 slightly and subtly different versions of NAT66.  Not publishing a document can ensure we will have those 1000 different versions of NAT66, it will not ensure that NAT66 is not deployed.
> 
> I believe our only hope of a world without NAT66 deployed all over the place is to define the beast and explain why we think it is a bad idea.  Until we charter the IEP (the Internet Engineering Police) and/or the IEA (the Internet Engineering Army) the only weapons we have are words and their power to persuade.  
> 
> We could try to holding or breath until NAT66 goes away, but all that will lead too is a bunch of passed-out network engineers on the carpet at the IETF Plenary. 
> 
> To explain why we think NAT66 is a bad idea, we have to acknowledge it exists.  Just a with IPv4 our failure to define a standard form of NAT, will not prevent the deployment of NAT, it will ensure the deployment of subtly incompatible and worse versions of NAT.  Our only useful way forward is to define NAT66 and explain why we think it is a bad idea.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>> Gert Doering
>>       -- NetMaster
>> -- 
>> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
> 
> -- 
> ===============================================
> David Farmer                          Email: [e-mail]
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota    
> 2218 University Ave SE         Phone: [phone]
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: [phone]
> ===============================================
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops