IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Are we competitive?

Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Thu, 11 August 2022 09:54 UTC

Return-Path: <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
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 BCA74C14CF12 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 02:54:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aW9NeA-Kg3IP for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 02:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A95EC14CF05 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 02:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.200]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4M3MbB6QbRz686Dr; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 17:54:14 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.142) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 11:54:19 +0200
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.142]) by mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.142]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.024; Thu, 11 Aug 2022 12:54:19 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, "buraglio@es.net" <buraglio@es.net>
CC: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, Xipengxiao <xipengxiao@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Are we competitive?
Thread-Index: AQHYoi0ZEjRK7z4aJ0mo31PReLBUu62TUvkAgACe0QCAACL2AIAADSQAgAACUYCAAEx0gIAA9pUAgBAq/YCAAQhUgIABXaZAgAAxMgCAAT4qYP//38aAgABDyZA=
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 09:54:19 +0000
Message-ID: <10f89b7cbe784881bd22b4af81577aa6@huawei.com>
References: <e4a35f0c-757a-aefa-c211-05b6015a4215@gmail.com> <YuJXbruluDmzF3RD@Space.Net> <ec68b29c62034d3e98adec9c5da45ff3@huawei.com> <25e4f9e4-e055-241c-7047-97dca8b09cc8@gmail.com> <3c35a91af90d4b82af724e7ce98378d3@huawei.com> <CAE=N4xcPq3CB5DDjPOk3oAqBfpJRebhXsFExSEAX_Yr3_XsSUg@mail.gmail.com> <97662d43-7daa-191c-792b-49a626fb9769@gmail.com> <CAM5+tA_w9n2=cXc=mgsr8iOx2rndAWgPhnoNBs4UQnJd3gJxNA@mail.gmail.com> <CADzU5g4mSqqVXE9ppe1U=dMM59GUPviArL_5tiQe0yxm-YZrgw@mail.gmail.com> <CAM5+tA9tOGuy8scXStxOTzWOwG_zvDHx4Hi5CwkGiYmzNLOvqw@mail.gmail.com> <9687af1f59a6492f8353ade4d920fa95@huawei.com> <CAM5+tA8UF-3ZHkE0npZ0r5sDQ+FudTSPhpWns1BsPCk=NecX+Q@mail.gmail.com> <7e4606c4534c49a593863bda870b6e63@huawei.com> <3f138b03-940a-e83a-6c6e-6039506b6e4b@gont.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <3f138b03-940a-e83a-6c6e-6039506b6e4b@gont.com.ar>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.81.209.202]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/wCGLhXxyHJ5bHTss6TJBOEDJwpY>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Are we competitive?
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 09:54:22 -0000

Hi Fernnado,
You are right that people are not always logical.
But for the "NAT66 against NPT" the choice is evident.
IMHO: It is possible to prove by logic.
Let's try.
If NAT is inevitable then let it better be NPT.
Eduard
-----Original Message-----
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fernando@gont.com.ar] 
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2022 11:48 AM
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>; buraglio@es.net
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>; Xipengxiao <xipengxiao@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Are we competitive?

Hi, Eduard,

On 11/8/22 04:46, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
> Hi Nick,
> 
> If no use case for NAT66 specifically
> 
> Then I propose never mentioning it again.
> 
> For a few NAT cases that I have in mind (like MHMP environment)
> 
> NPT is much better.

Comparing NPT with NAT66 is a bit like comparing a steak with a burger. 
  People probably don't eat burgers over stakes because they are better, but rather because there are other properties that seem attractive -- e.g. "you know what you are getting", "tastes the same everywhere", "you're used to it", "it's fast", "you can probably buy it nearby", or the like (not necessarily prioritizing the same properties that other people might prioritize)

In this case, any folk that can get his/her problem solved by solving it with what he/she already knows, with well understood properties, will probably do it that way.

Example: I ran into a VPN deployment (access corporate stuff) where IPv4 connectivity was RFC1918/NAT as expected, and where the v6 part was ULA/NAT66.

* Did it solve the problem that it was meant to solve? - Yes

* How would we have changed such deployment if NAT66 was removed? -- Probably global IPv6 + a stateful (diode-like) firewall.

The setup felt familiar to the network folks, and at the end of the day was acceptable for the security folk (me) -- "win"-"win"... so let's spend our time on a problem we actually had, or things that warranted more attention.

Going back to the beef analogy: If you are into the meat business, you probably want folks to be able to pick among burgers and stakes, as opposed to go for, say, vegetables, because they can't get their quick-and-tasty burger. :-)

P.S.: Apologies for the (possibly questionable) analogies ;-)

Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar
PGP Fingerprint: 7F7F 686D 8AC9 3319 EEAD C1C8 D1D5 4B94 E301 6F01

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email