Re: [v6ops] draft-moreiras-v6ops-rfc3849bis-00

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Tue, 13 August 2013 03:30 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EA6111E8118 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 20:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lbQAS+zQaE2e for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 20:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C48A11E811B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 20:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BCB2C9425; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 03:30:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isc.org; s=dkim2012; t=1376364644; bh=nAkBJF/MRfiqsMmrb+qxxLNFxzHD5ePUP5mE2j9TahY=; h=To:Cc:From:References:Subject:In-reply-to:Date; b=j8Np34meHmxF5EcIrCeh7mbrb/cFlWlwytuV6JwYLH2670UiG5/LlKJ32G4TGZrf7 OvdaCjoqfS6LK5IcKEwUHO5DH5QCOHEnVqo9G3jAH7jwlgjO0ax8EGr5Q21XGwb36e ZpoJm8jceuNvX3K71FJB6n3CJQ+RaTk87dagG0h0=
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 03:30:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEB81160436; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 03:35:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id aQmZ1J1lniOe; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 03:35:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98410160435; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 03:35:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (c211-30-183-50.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.183.50]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6914D16032F; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 03:35:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 918353846F7A; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:53:36 +1000 (EST)
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <5207D42F.2030302@nic.br> <5207E319.6070601@nic.br> <B66D2D0C-DE6D-49CC-A87A-7C65B5360DB4@delong.com> <20130811233819.AE71C383CF0C@drugs.dv.isc.org> <5773BB43-B910-482A-A6EF-AFCD2B6AE181@delong.com> <20130812211453.89A833845161@drugs.dv.isc.org> <0B5D3829-C490-4A7A-B185-9D072ACCF4F5@delong.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:04:47 -0700." <0B5D3829-C490-4A7A-B185-9D072ACCF4F5@delong.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:53:36 +1000
Message-Id: <20130813025336.918353846F7A@drugs.dv.isc.org>
X-DCC--Metrics: post.isc.org; whitelist
Cc: Alejandro Acosta <aacosta@rocketmail.com>, v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-moreiras-v6ops-rfc3849bis-00
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 03:30:51 -0000

In message <0B5D3829-C490-4A7A-B185-9D072ACCF4F5@delong.com>om>, Owen DeLong writes:
> Given the wide prevalence of RFC-1918 islands that were merged with
> double NATs instead of repaired in the IPv4 world (which I believe =
> likely
> outnumber the number of environments where one or the other entity
> was actually renumbered into non-conflicting space), I think we have
> strong evidence that this is not true.

And how many RFC-1918 islands had alternate address space to renumber
into?

How many RFC-1918 islands started out knowing they would have to
renumber if there was a collision when they connected to someone
else?

How many RFC-1918 islands were designed to run with multiple addresses
per interface from day one?

How many RFC-1918 islands run dual IPv4 addressed?

Now ask the same questions of ULA islands.  You have different
solutions available with ULA than you do with RFC-1918.  NAT is not
required to fix ULA collisions.  ULA sites with collisions don't
even need to renumber out of the colliding prefixes if they don't
want to.

Mark

> I would consider using double NAT not a repair, but a workaround which
> has significant adverse consequences.
> 
> Owen
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org