Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input

[Nick Buraglio <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 11:39 AM daveb <[e-mail]> wrote:

> At 11:37 AM 4/6/2022, Chris Cummings wrote:
> > >For those who disagree, can you give up your
> > globally unique E.164 phone number on your mobile phone to see how that
> goes?
> >
> >I know that you called out mobile phones
> >specifically, but since we're talking mainly
> >about enterprises, I think that a PBX is perhaps
> >a more appropriate comparison. Businesses have
> >been running PBXs with private extensions for
> >their phone numbers for decades, and it is a
> >well-established pattern. It's actually almost a
> >perfect analog in my mind for NAT/PAT. I, of
> >course, don't like NAT and love end-to-end
> >connectivity, however, to Nick's points here,
> >lack of end-to-end connectivity is a very
> >well-established pattern for most enterprises,
> >just like private extensions on a PBX.Â
>
>
> But you can still reach me directly by dialing
> [phone] x137. Although I guess that would be
> similar to NAT + Port Forwarding.


------

> Perhaps it's
> best to accept the perceived benefits of NAT
> (NAT66) to get the ball rolling and then maybe it
> becomes easier for them to see the value of full
> end-to-end connectivity, and a fairly easy
> transition to remove NAT66 to some/all portions of the enterprise network?
>
-----

This is really the point I am trying to make. Just because something isn't
in the spirit of the original idea doesn't mean that it won't be the
prevailing way that things are done. I try to take the approach that "this
may not be the way I'd do it, and it may not be the best - or even a good -
way to build infrastructure, but if it meets the needs and requirements of
an organization, then all we can do is present all of the alternatives and
work with what is decided". Saying "this is the wrong way" won't gain
anything 99% of the time. We can write best practices and advise as to the
spirit of the ideas, but if we want enterprise adoption we have to meet
them more than half way or be ok with them saying "nah, we'll pass on that"
because it doesn't fit in their design/compliance/security model.
Again, I am /VERY/ much in favor of end-to-end connectivity, anyone can see
my track record on this topic if they look around, but I also have had a
lot of experience on making progress in that space and that experience
tells me that asking for complete paradigm shifts without exceptionally
clear and significant advantages well above and beyond what is status quo,
or the solution to a very specific problem that cannot be accomplished any
other way, the answer is almost always a "pass".
Once we can rectify that, then we at least have a point to start from.


>
> Dave B. (Small ISP that would love to see more enterprise customers take
> IPv6)
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>