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

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

I don't quite understand what you men by this.

 

My internal DNS for the house does not reveal the existence of any of the machines to the outside world. Multiple horizons have been a feature of DNS for decades now.

 

The only thing global about DNS is that there is only one consensus holder of a particular name. You can override ietf.org in your local DNS server but you cannot persuade a large number of folk to do that at a global level.

 

Seems to me that it would be a good thing for the IAB to look into this area of assumptions as well.

 

 

In particular the original conception of DNS was to locate a HOST. Since then we have increasingly used DNS to locate a SERVICE, starting with MX but continuing since.

 

But more generally, I don't think that there is a proposal for multiple global domains. The assumption seems to be that we have networks that connect together through the Internet. A network may use a different address and DNS resolution internally and a network may in turn be comprised of sub-networks with different address and DNs resolutions. But there is only one Internet and one set of name holders and one set of universally agreed addresses.

 

Can is opened, Do you want to borrow a soldering iron and a spoon to try and push 'em back in?

---

From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of james woodyatt
Sent: Tue 11/25/2008 7:34 PM
To: Behave WG
Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers

On Nov 25, 2008, at 15:11, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> Keith, would the NAT-66 proposal plus some mechanism for a server
> inside the NAT to ask the NAT for its global address be sufficient to
> meet the needs described above?

No.  RFC 3424 is the IAB Considerations document covering that 
problem.  I'm tempted to copy and paste highlights from that ancient 
scripture here, but I don't think I'd know where to stop.  As the 
kiddies say, Read The Whole Thing.

The basic problem with NAT66 is that it introduces the possibility of 
more than one global IPv6 address realm.  Where there is more than 
one, there is *any* number, not just the current realm and the single 
realm on the other side of the relevant NAT66 box.  Fixing your self-
address in whatever address realm any given communications peer 
happens to reside is the canonical problem that NAT causes for 
applications developers, and NAT66 is no exception to that.

If we're going to go very far down this road toward standardizing on a 
NAT66 "solution," then I would humbly suggest that it doesn't make 
much sense for there to be a single global DNS horizon where we have 
multiple global address realms.  Do the proponents of NAT66 have any 
proposals for extending DNS appropriately to support the architecture 
that NAT66 implies?

Do we really want to open the can of worms that multiple global DNS 
horizons represents?  I should hope not.


--
james woodyatt <jhw@xxxxxxxxx>
member of technical staff, communications engineering


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

_______________________________________________

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