Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




While most of the discussion about killing NAT66 is happening on the IETF list, we have a much more constructive discussion going on in behave regarding how to define an IPv6 NAT that will meet the needs of network administrators and end-users, while being less destructive to the Internet architecture, local network connectivity, transport layer protocols and applications than current IPv4 NA(P)Ts. It is not clear that we can achieve everything that we want to achieve yet, but wouldn't it be cool if we did?

If folks would like to join that discussion, please read the following:

NAT66 Internet-Draft:  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mrw-behave-nat66-01
NAT66 Presentation (updates the draft):  http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/slides/behave-14.pdf

Then, come talk to us on the behave WG mailing list: behave@xxxxxxxx, To Subscribe: behave-request@xxxxxxxx, In Body: subscribe.

All feedback and opinions are welcome!

Margaret

On Nov 26, 2008, at 12:14 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

Eric,

The problem here is that you assume that the IETF has decision power that can magic away NAT66. Clearly it did not for NAT44 and will not for NAT66.

So the real question for App designers is:

1) Should they design protocols that assume no NAT66
2) Should they regard the assumption that there is no NAT6 as a design fault that may lead to lack of interoperability.

The only way that the effort being expended to kill NAT66 makes any sense is if the idea is to allow this type of argument to be rulled out of scope as similar arguments were ruled out of scope when they were brought up in existing protocols that simply do not work properly because the design was intentionally made to be unfriendly to NAT.

If we recognize that there is no consensus that applications that are not NAT66-agile will work in future then we should agree that the reasonable default requirement for an apps WG should be that it should build a protocol that is NAT66 tolerant. But I suspect that there will be severe pushback against that.


Peter Dambier is right in this case,

I would NAT66 my network for the simple reason that very few endpoint devices actually tollerate a change in the IP address without at a minimum a service interruption. Since I cannot guarantee that my IPv6 address from my ISP will never change I am going to NAT66 my internal network for the sake of having static numbering inside the network.

The more infrequent you posit the need for renumbering is, the greater my reluctance to allowing it will become. If you have a network event that happens only once a year it is going to mean a very serious disruption when it happens. DHCP only solves some of the problems, I am still effectively forced to perform a reboot, I will lose connections and this will cost me real time and money to fix.



From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of Eric Klein
Sent: Mon 11/24/2008 5:56 AM
To: Fred Baker
Cc: IAB; behave@xxxxxxxx WG; IETF Discussion; alh-ietf@xxxxxxxx; IESG IESG Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers



On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Fred Baker <fred@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 21, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Tony Hain wrote:

The discussion today in Behave shows there is very strong peer- pressure group-think with no serious analysis of the long term implications about what is being discussed.

Yes, there is a very clear anti-NAT religion that drives a lot of thought. It's not clear that any other opinion is tolerated.

Fred,

I pesonally would be open to a real discussion about the needs and then about the solution. But for now NAT has taken on religious connotations with those who are for it being as single minded as those who are against it.

We need a team made up of both sides to sit down, spell out what are the functions of NAT (using v4 as a basis) and then to see if: 1. If they are still relevant (like number shortage from v4 is not the same issue under v6 for example)
2. Do they already exist in v6 without adding NAT

Then we need to check:
1. Is there is a solution by using NAT
2. Is there is a better solution than using NAT

Only then can we make a proper and informed decission on what is needed and what is unneeded legacy.
Eric
_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
Behave@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]