[LAC-TF] IPv6 NAT (Fwd: Re: Deprecating IPv6 (Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00))

[Fernando Gont]

Hablando de drogas...: IPv6 NAT :-)


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: Deprecating IPv6 (Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00)
Date: 	Wed, 7 Jun 2017 16:42:12 -0700
From: 	james woodyatt <jhw at google.com>
To: 	Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com>
CC: 	6man <ipv6 at ietf.org>



On Jun 7, 2017, at 15:41, Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com
<mailto:cb.list6 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I am unfamiliar with thread () in the real world and don't yet feel
> compelled to believe a widely deployed ietf standards track
> specifications should bend due some niche design choices that may or
> may not achieve a significant deployment. 

As far as I know, nobody associated with Thread™ apart from me is even
listening to IETF much less offering anything to say. And the only thing
I’m saying is that IETF should stop pretending that IPv6/NAT in end site
addressing plans is preventable. It’s inevitable.

I’m not asking IETF to bend its standards accordingly. I’m actually
expecting that IETF will not bend, and that it will continue promoting
standards that leave end sites compelled to use IPv6-to-IPv6 Network
Address Translation to conserve address space (despite the contrary
statement in RFC 6177). The only thing I would prefer to see here is for
6MAN discussions to recognize the operational reality about IPv6/NAT and
stop using discussion points about how this or that draft should be
opposed because its adoption might lead to the widespread deployment of
IPv6/NAT, which I now believe to be impossible to stop. Indeed, I don’t
think there is any desire among service providers and equipment vendors
to prevent it.

Therefore, in the context of discussions around this particular draft,
I-D.bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6, I would say that arguments about how
subnet prefixes longer than /64 could leave end sites feeling compelled
to use IPv6/NAT for address conservation are not technically strong
arguments. They are already feeling compelled, even at the existing /64
boundary.

There may be other good arguments for retaining the fixed /64 subnet
prefix length in the IPv6 address architecture, but I would say that
preventing the rise of ubiquitous IPv6/NAT should not be one of them.
That ship sailed when RFC 6177 was passed, and it went over the horizon
when HOMENET didn’t receive any significant uptake among service providers.


--james woodyatt <jhw at google.com <mailto:jhw at google.com>>




-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando at gont.com.ar || fgont at si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1