IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Wed, 20 February 2019 23:43 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 DFD1F130E58 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 15:43:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fghRlnZGWMim for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 15:43:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it1-x12d.google.com (mail-it1-x12d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F57212D7EA for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 15:43:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it1-x12d.google.com with SMTP id x131so19743069itc.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 15:43:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=89jIuysLQPQkJXmMqbkh0Gz7Jsd4Q9zSmqAZdMmc8k4=; b=K9oCdZc+Xp8BWXJ46yGulEpiGR9SvZhCEIVnburfE3BABZ4/Dx6AiiFjyPEpkGpUFk 58Do7HCww/gz1LGtdRa+CsJ1HXY+r1gDn96U7JJ6GkjStQ+lNfXeVh19jGXzFFDplcBg erMm/CyFLAK6d1nQkH7/1+hLYMfZpW5y6mOrCcNUJAYxTnBKV5nAe+bnEaboPcxAi1ha 86hoFDTuo6A5LYYYVmuQlp1dSUhj8OHe7VYGralfFKpYGsC+RYqYyVy8sJ48uJU0DUte RowPhyH7mzd+Rl1GB6qghohvyd5QYXSKsUfZOrappUU1O6EzX26bntG1P5CQNqeadYUY OOIw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=89jIuysLQPQkJXmMqbkh0Gz7Jsd4Q9zSmqAZdMmc8k4=; b=Ll6Rbnrd9BT6THTsklczsVl34uPBvcPYuqf3MaZ9a6/eN8eMuN0BUBQin6JbzAl6Nb Sk5hvVwo7qD6tF8qQ2egsonFVa5p/4SETFo7+BNs/c002YLs9z+NQLO+QBHCdHZR71L1 jIuXG6zZIRMHT1PyKPQQMIeplnmYNy0v0A6jy5ejtI+fQP+axfsqXyNfSsoy4QtVSERH OQF8q/LaFTEplnGjOz9Pf7loN86hXMFfdVliDWauLAKPOmne18S4kMpgXGMXmE/BOWfG CoaeuE5hKN84R5t4n8WgoCATst8LxpTF10mqrdVhyeAATtB04F7TRBFmlSy/oe31hAoT TLpA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubaJupFYRZJgzRc6WmxtwiztSibakk15vRI6l9tf+lQuJ8ia4C/ pGYkI3Dyg9EXlntAi5BPJ3cwZjT4jVGzdA29UmmhLA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IasoAX/WjUI26qZpqiRCQY9WuFQIdlBdeSL0q0HjPsIVw/yDY4EY7/qrCgQS4bdF2k6ikoDTRPpmZABTm3Ok+M=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:4290:: with SMTP id i138mr6758613itb.24.1550706212732; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 15:43:32 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6D78F4B2-A30D-4562-AC21-E4D3DE019D90@consulintel.es> <B6E2EC33-EEAF-40D0-AFCC-BDAFA9134ACD@consulintel.es> <20190220113603.GK71606@Space.Net> <28fbc2c305c640c9afb3704050f6e8d7@boeing.com> <20190220213107.GS71606@Space.Net> <019c552eb1624d348641d6930829fd1f@boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <019c552eb1624d348641d6930829fd1f@boeing.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:43:21 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr0HBG+rhyFWg9zh0t3mW486Mjx9umjn+CRqAZg4z9r0dg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Manfredi (US), Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f67ac305825becb7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/wt7SlZb0xh-4ecR7vKfahr9FPWE>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 23:43:36 -0000

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:17 AM Manfredi (US), Albert E <
albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> wrote:

> Right. So, why shouldn't this NAT66 idea be taken more seriously? All of
> the advantages of the basic NAT come to bear, including the renumbering
> problem in enterprises, including no changes required to SLAAC timers, and
> sessions easily survive a reboot of the edge router, and yet none of the
> port translation kludge that made NATs useful in IPv4.
>

Because the advantages are for network operators have corresponding
disadvantages for application developers and thus for users. Application
complexity and brittleness due to NAT traversal. Battery impact of NAT
keepalives. Higher-latency due to relaying and rendezvous. And so on.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email