IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Follow-up Discussion - draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices - NAT

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 20 October 2015 00:40 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBB1D1B2B37 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 Uv2DJf7rrAPg for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:40:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x229.google.com (mail-pa0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::229]) (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 E62EC1B2F7A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by padhk11 with SMTP id hk11so2417781pad.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=qZECBs+dbcqURE3cCZsIY9kfWx74jr+SbKk/2S9q3jI=; b=EHrPHVCPsz/qlxnCXgULMVkLYYW5dEDgDeGMelgn8CGk9KsCQCvSLTWbitcf7hW6YE zn62qbqW2PP7tpdgO2RVqrsgVeS0U1SMA/VN3xGg5qnm04oFYBCy4ClGjOWXfSBFNKs/ 6eR2fcNi01NFUZcjCHbcyuco1aHKFx6Tc6zzxJmV0mwQ4/3UqmjltetDKVLhyTBdaYb5 aIjjZ0LEmL/D510gBm01VN9u2N3OBwEwQEkK1C07nmkOLMdS9AC2J6z5/K0I7zQDr1VR I2o820uvf4+6QcyLdhhXxv193sRau8qlUXT0xTjDZp+BbkmwNX83GaA207zEwT93kCI2 REOQ==
X-Received: by 10.68.253.66 with SMTP id zy2mr450676pbc.50.1445301647594; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.25] (50.23.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [123.255.23.50]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id cx5sm253868pbc.50.2015.10.19.17.40.44 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
To: Philip Matthews <philip_matthews@magma.ca>
References: <56250655.2040701@jvknet.com> <56254C98.2010501@gmail.com> <75421D8D-362D-4D47-AB56-B8CB7639CC51@magma.ca>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <56258D8D.2010702@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:40:45 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <75421D8D-362D-4D47-AB56-B8CB7639CC51@magma.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/zP3JDmXGGjsfwc65dJH9X0eObLg>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Follow-up Discussion - draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices - NAT
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 00:40:52 -0000

On 20/10/2015 10:02, Philip Matthews wrote:
> Brian:
> 
> What solution would you recommend today to a small-to-medium-sized enterprise that cannot get PI space and wants the flexibility to easily change providers and possibly multi-home?
> 
> If the enterprise numbers their network internally with PA space, then they need to renumber to change providers. Though this is definitely easier in IPv6 than IPv4, it is still not "easy".  And what about multi-homing?

Run multiple prefixes. RFC 7157 (and draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host).
Once you get your mind round that, renumbering seems easier too.
I'm not trying to say this is completely straightforward. I'm left a bit
frustrated by RFC 6879 and RFC 7010.

   Brian


> 
> - Philip
> 
> 
> On 2015-10-19, at 16:03 , Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>>> If ULAs are the only non-Link-Local address available the	
>>> hosts, the enterprise will need to use translation technologies such	
>>> as NPT[RFC6296] or NAT66 to reach the Internet. 
>>
>> I think this is still the wrong message. Here's my suggestion:
>>
>> The best approach is to use ULAs for internal communications and
>> normal IPv6 addresses for external communications. Running multiple
>> addresses in this way is a standard feature of IPv6. If for some reason
>> an enterprise decides to use ULAs as the only non-Link-Local address
>> available to its hosts, the enterprise will also need to use the
>> experimental address prefix technology translation known as NPTv6
>> [RFC6296] to reach the Internet. Full address translation (known
>> as NAT66) is never needed for IPv6 since there is no address shortage.
>>
>> Regards
>>   Brian Carpenter
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
> 
> .
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email