IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Are we competitive?

Nick Buraglio <buraglio@es.net> Mon, 15 August 2022 21:38 UTC

Return-Path: <buraglio@es.net>
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 4DD28C14F742 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 14:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, GB_AFFORDABLE=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=es.net
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 fYJzcOA1xWdY for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 14:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102b.google.com (mail-pj1-x102b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38DC4C1524DF for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 14:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102b.google.com with SMTP id h21-20020a17090aa89500b001f31a61b91dso15584285pjq.4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 14:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=es.net; s=esnet-google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=ZK5kYNugz87b1zJVpiyJcc7jCyOr2Np7ZIg3mYeERws=; b=hXDGrL+ZmKB4PyJF546zh0ovQ6B0gJ2FLiEitD6f9PxrkLiUtTkFcm8MAcKpY/I4Sh YDvxUR/OzAl7/xp9wNh1NnTfAfx6H5vRPsgYZ50nXzywFwe125OQSExwef1AFXKPyFVS 9QtYPgmIHG4I9o+gf2KawzWw3IulDI6ZkVseWzaU2yyqjuUZua7/vI1Xiay/mjho6F18 bgB/AT+ayEytb6qq2gGFjomeBbXMhcBBv6uExd2W+uIVYPlRajZKqCJsYM5IWV/wXSLA T65pk194pblcAGSv9ohia+9+3h81/wWo8d6sbp+VGklDq1ZyE7pAMPxXa3wydM9Pe713 AAGg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=ZK5kYNugz87b1zJVpiyJcc7jCyOr2Np7ZIg3mYeERws=; b=T8j6tdJ+mSdGaTvr3wFG3GnBUE6ABOta/9LBTa8uwAwZ80DutyfgFShDKc181Q1k/4 J+M+kwva6XXXen/e5Hx2WTvYcQQXLy151MbQ49P+iFUzQlgNCUaXvCVdkwVB5WHt8CdX xHHXMKy92j4p7T4Jlr3oUHhGOmhA+pjKmjIhrqEaGSY4bvYiUKHcPYcgdhVCC/U1/P5z bp1OPLNsIpWZ3vewfyXfBzgm3b6DXk0GoW152z9u4GWPhA8eZ1Uo8VhJzmJv/cDy6zBl 9m5gJfhvvshEA1/WTXJ6U4Io3Z2OdXcWH4F0oTidCx+hqrDchDlebOffwNchZTy7JLYU 2YRQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo2VimTQfaeIdfIi8cg4rahkdQZn5xObbQGuuo15jAfzbSeUuFm+ lTcGhNP+TlkqAIqE5gEACjFl63Ko67UTfYI7kPhdyUmOO8BxPuRQlzXI0OFtxI50pR6iD3hsDgK zMOwYycJ1Dee0poxy95AczNAAyy25xqeBgWZf2wHYTq+omzIwcBGtpwRou+Dal5MuvcVs6hw+eE k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6l2fAKvRepRUvhVrBprlP0V48ym3dQnd04MxMJ3ZvHGcxiTHz0tgSPrKN5fcSowR62WUvrXIWy5Mvr05fvdgs=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:e750:b0:16f:3f32:6f5c with SMTP id p16-20020a170902e75000b0016f3f326f5cmr18904852plf.106.1660599477089; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 14:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM5+tA8UF-3ZHkE0npZ0r5sDQ+FudTSPhpWns1BsPCk=NecX+Q@mail.gmail.com> <7e4606c4534c49a593863bda870b6e63@huawei.com> <3f138b03-940a-e83a-6c6e-6039506b6e4b@gont.com.ar> <10f89b7cbe784881bd22b4af81577aa6@huawei.com> <CAN-Dau0nz0TouDnz5pei0MCmTzSbP8q+gHLx1m0sxX0hsuPX3w@mail.gmail.com> <b9f33aa499b043bb90ff926731db9739@huawei.com> <b885bdd4-d837-1eda-9614-36c76190d920@gont.com.ar> <a6975472445f49018abab153fa61b399@huawei.com> <YvoaJ+IJdl/VXYLj@Space.Net> <CAO42Z2xnE_NeTnTJ8MTTiKX2oZ5Wo6Rxss-42hqHzwJ7O_iXwg@mail.gmail.com> <YvqtAQoywadiEMSi@Space.Net> <CAO42Z2w99psTk+7vQv4f7yFMN4a73gw9vjjzUupQE7kHADiB+g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2w99psTk+7vQv4f7yFMN4a73gw9vjjzUupQE7kHADiB+g@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: buraglio@es.net
From: Nick Buraglio <buraglio@es.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 16:37:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CAM5+tA-cgeESX5cgDbrhrwpeQeVfs_cf7SQE4XRoC3L03YMZQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, David Farmer <farmer=40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/yYgBHVTTj34-5OD8f3kVEZ74Cqo>
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: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 21:38:02 -0000

But how operationally supportable are they? What are the performance
implications? How well does $vendor support these options? Does this
meet compliance requirements? These are all questions that will need
to have palatable answers that are very easily consumable for anything
like that to be supportable across a given ecosystem. Enterprise is a
confluence of supportable, affordable, easily deployable, and
compliance meeting. Anything else is simply an impediment and a reason
not to do it, sadly.


nb

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 4:06 PM Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You've missed the point.
>
> If you're obsessed with hiding your topology, there are various ways of putting millions of hosts in a single /64.
>
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2022, 06:30 Gert Doering, <gert@space.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 09:13:04PM +1000, Mark Smith wrote:
>> > > Hiding of internal information.
>> >
>> > There are ways you can do that on IPv6.
>> >
>> > A single /64 has more address space than the entire 32 bit IPv4 address
>> > space, 4 billion times more.
>> >
>> > So if you want to hide your IPv6 topology, put every host in a single /64,
>> > via something like ISATAP + RFC7217 and RFC8981, tunneled over IPv4, or
>> > something else that allows you to put all hosts in a single IPv6/64, like
>> > EVPN.
>>
>> Why would I want to run IPv6 if it needs IPv4 infrastructure to do so?
>>
>> Seriously?
>>
>> This is a discussion that started (among others) with "why are enterprises
>> not deploying IPv6" and then people make suggestions like this.
>>
>> > An IPsec VPN concentrator is another example of something that can put
>> > everybody in the same /64.
>>
>> Sounds like a spectacular idea to get removed very fast from said
>> enterprise's workforce.
>>
>> Gert Doering
>>         -- NetMaster
>> --
>> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>>
>> SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
>> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
>> D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
>> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email