sigh. another essay without actual content.
* Daniel Ouellet dan...@presscom.net [2012-10-24 20:00]:
NAT always makes connectivity less efficient
yeah, right.
NAT was sadly a quick way to setup security
b***s***.
NAT needs to process every packets
opposed to the !NAT case, where a
* Jussi Peltola pe...@pelzi.net [2012-10-24 21:37]:
This is something that can only be fixed by getting rid of the
assumption about non-changing host addresses.
what a brilliant design. instead of fixing a networking problem at the
networking layer change all the layers above, up to and
* Otto Moerbeek o...@drijf.net [2012-10-25 16:34]:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 02:23:06PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
and they get the time between crashes down to an acceptable amount
down? I hope you mean up ;-)
we're talking about the industry that has gazillions of gsm access
points
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 22:16:04 +0200
Claudio Jeker cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com wrote:
Just as an example. A few weeks ago it was a lot easier to get one of
the last IPv4 PI address blocks at RIPE than getting a PI IPv6 block.
Since the first one has no strings attached (apart from having an AS
Original Message
Subject: Re: Why anyone in their right mind would like to use NAT64
From: Simon Perreault sperrea...@openbsd.org
Date: Wed, October 24, 2012 12:33 pm
To: misc@openbsd.org
Le 2012-10-24 15:29, Barbier, Jason a écrit :
Well expanding on the address space
Le 2012-10-25 07:45, chrisbenn...@bennettconstruction.us a écrit :
I have two very old IP print servers that work just fine.
You just have to flip those 4 tiny little switches to get access
to program them over IP. Can I get another tiny switch to add IPv6?
You could just map an IPv6 address
Le 2012-10-25 00:20, Constantine A. Murenin a écrit :
No dual-stacking is
provided; in their slides from [0], T-Mobile USA claims that IPv6-only
with NAT64/DNS64 is cheaper than dual-stack with NAT44.
Yes. I forgot to mention another reason why the 3GPP folks like NAT64:
most 3GPP equipment
On 2012-10-25, Simon Perreault si...@nomis80.org wrote:
Le 2012-10-25 00:20, Constantine A. Murenin a écrit :
No dual-stacking is
provided; in their slides from [0], T-Mobile USA claims that IPv6-only
with NAT64/DNS64 is cheaper than dual-stack with NAT44.
Yes. I forgot to mention another
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 02:23:06PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2012-10-25, Simon Perreault si...@nomis80.org wrote:
Le 2012-10-25 00:20, Constantine A. Murenin a ??crit :
No dual-stacking is
provided; in their slides from [0], T-Mobile USA claims that IPv6-only
with NAT64/DNS64 is
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:33:55 -0400
Simon Perreault sperrea...@openbsd.org wrote:
I'm going to wait a long time for a firmware update that makes my
IPv4-only printer speak IPv6.
My brother wifi printer from... 5 years ago?? supports ipv6. Sometimes I enable
it and publish it in IRC and see
Hi,
Just saw a few questions and patch for NAT64 on misc and tech@ and I am
really questioning the reason to be fore NAT64 and why anyone in their
right mind would actually want to use this?
NAT always makes connectivity less efficient anyway and was really
designed to alleviated the lack
Daniel Ouellet dan...@presscom.net writes:
Just saw a few questions and patch for NAT64 on misc and tech@ and I
am really questioning the reason to be fore NAT64 and why anyone in
their right mind would actually want to use this?
The main reason why NAT64 was developed is that in some
One use case: ISP who wants to provide IPv4+IPv6 to customers, but does
not have enough IPv4 addresses for everyone, so has to NAT anyway, and
wants to simplify the operation of its edge network by running only one
protocol.
Quite popular with 3GPP folks since they have zillions of customers
Daniel Ouellet wrote:
Anyone have any possible explication that would actually justify the use
of NAT64 that I obviously overlooked?
The one use I could think of us to make your internal network
independent of your ISP. Right now, if you change ISPs, your network
prefix changes and your
Hello,
Le 24/10/2012 18:43, Daniel Ouellet a écrit :
Hi,
Just saw a few questions and patch for NAT64 on misc and tech@ and I am
really questioning the reason to be fore NAT64 and why anyone in their
right mind would actually want to use this?
What is your proposal to allow a v6-only
Anyone have any possible explication that would actually justify the use
of NAT64 that I obviously overlooked?
The one use I could think of us to make your internal network
independent of your ISP. Right now, if you change ISPs, your network
prefix changes and your whole network has
Le 2012-10-24 14:25, Kurt Mosiejczuk a écrit :
The one use I could think of us to make your internal network
independent of your ISP. Right now, if you change ISPs, your network
prefix changes and your whole network has to be renumbered.
I read about it in the following article earlier this
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:43:14PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
Le 2012-10-24 14:25, Kurt Mosiejczuk a écrit :
The one use I could think of us to make your internal network
independent of your ISP. Right now, if you change ISPs, your network
prefix changes and your whole network has to be
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:43:14PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
Le 2012-10-24 14:25, Kurt Mosiejczuk a écrit :
The one use I could think of us to make your internal network
independent of your ISP. Right now, if you change ISPs, your network
prefix changes and your whole network has to
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:43:12PM -0400, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
Hi,
Just saw a few questions and patch for NAT64 on misc and tech@ and I
am really questioning the reason to be fore NAT64 and why anyone in
their right mind would actually want to use this?
To reach v4 only hosts, d'oh?
IN
Le 2012-10-24 14:54, Claudio Jeker a écrit :
But less PI space. Since some evangelists belive in the superiority of
IPv6 and try everything to make it impossible to get routable PI space.
At the moment IPv6 is a step backwards in all regards.
Wait wait wait... what RIR doesn't take multihoming
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:43:14PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
What you need to multihome is either BGP or NAT. Exactly as in IPv4.
Nothing has changed. The only new thing with IPv6 is that there's
more bits.
Oh? I have two internet connections plugged directly into my desktop box
at home,
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:43:14PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
What you need to multihome is either BGP or NAT. Exactly as in IPv4.
Nothing has changed. The only new thing with IPv6 is that there's
more bits.
Oh? I have two internet connections plugged directly into my desktop box
at
You have IPv4 only applications, that need to talk with the IPv6 internet.
On 2012 Oct 24 (Wed) at 12:43:12 -0400 (-0400), Daniel Ouellet wrote:
:Hi,
:
:Just saw a few questions and patch for NAT64 on misc and tech@ and I
:am really questioning the reason to be fore NAT64 and why anyone in
End hosts need to get smarter, instead of the network adapting to their
stupidity. But I'm not holding my breath.
No, what you are really saying is that non-transient network traffic
(long lived TCP sessions) need to have the applications talking them
-- and obviously the protocols also --
Well expanding on the address space and numbering issue, that would be a
valid use for NAT but I honestly think it would be better to actually try
and fix that before trying to put a hack over the top of it. In theory you
could do it with routing tables but I could be retarded also so.
On Wed,
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:25:07PM -0400, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote:
I read about it in the following article earlier this year.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/31/ipv6_sucks_for_smes/
Everybody except a few zealots have accepted the fact that NAT will
exist in ipv6 just like v4. The
Le 2012-10-24 15:29, Barbier, Jason a écrit :
Well expanding on the address space and numbering issue, that would be a
valid use for NAT but I honestly think it would be better to actually try
and fix that before trying to put a hack over the top of it.
I'm going to wait a long time for a
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:21:33PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
What happens if one of your links goes down for a day?
Do all your ssh sessions to everywhere in the world stay up?
The internet has non-transient traffic, too.
No, I will have to re-start some of them. This is something that
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Simon Perreault
sperrea...@openbsd.orgwrote:
Le 2012-10-24 15:29, Barbier, Jason a écrit :
Well expanding on the address space and numbering issue, that would be a
valid use for NAT but I honestly think it would be better to actually try
and fix that
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:28:38PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Basically to make IPv6 pseudo-multihoming work like IPv4
multihoming, ssh and sshd need to be modified that they can handle a
network break, and re-connect using another address.
I fail to see what any of this has to do with
Le 2012-10-24 15:38, Barbier, Jason a écrit :
I'm going to wait a long time for a firmware update that makes my
IPv4-only printer speak IPv6.
Well man there are several stable implementations of 4 to 6 and 6 to 4
bridges.
I don't know what kind of bridges you're talking about, but I'll
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:21:33PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
What happens if one of your links goes down for a day?
Do all your ssh sessions to everywhere in the world stay up?
The internet has non-transient traffic, too.
No, I will have to re-start some of them. This is
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:28:38PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Basically to make IPv6 pseudo-multihoming work like IPv4
multihoming, ssh and sshd need to be modified that they can handle a
network break, and re-connect using another address.
I fail to see what any of this has to do with
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:43:01PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Luckily that is not a problem in ipv4.
I can get IPv6 PI and multihome with v6 as it is just like I used to be
able with v4; now there is no more v4 PI at RIPE. But what does this
have to do with the on-wire protocol again?
Do
As someone working for a 'Carrier' vendor - I can tell you straight
up that LSN(Large Scale) or CGN(Carrier Grad) NAT are big sell points
(i.e customers are asking for them).
Personally out of the various RFC's and schemes i've had the
displeasure of perusing for V6 to V4 access NAT64 to me
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 03:42:52PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
| Le 2012-10-24 15:38, Barbier, Jason a ?crit :
| I'm going to wait a long time for a firmware update that makes my
| IPv4-only printer speak IPv6.
Even if it did, would you trust that stack on the global (v6)
internet ?
| Well man
Le 2012-10-24 15:59, Paul de Weerd a écrit :
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 03:42:52PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
| Le 2012-10-24 15:38, Barbier, Jason a ?crit :
| I'm going to wait a long time for a firmware update that makes my
| IPv4-only printer speak IPv6.
Even if it did, would you trust that
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 03:10:29PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
Le 2012-10-24 14:54, Claudio Jeker a écrit :
But less PI space. Since some evangelists belive in the superiority of
IPv6 and try everything to make it impossible to get routable PI space.
At the moment IPv6 is a step backwards in
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:12:33PM +0300, Jussi Peltola wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:43:14PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
What you need to multihome is either BGP or NAT. Exactly as in IPv4.
Nothing has changed. The only new thing with IPv6 is that there's
more bits.
Oh? I have
Le 2012-10-24 16:30, Claudio Jeker a écrit :
With IPv6 multihoming should work trivially: plug two access lines into
a switch, get RAs from both, get addresses from both on your end-host,
and your end-host needs to select the proper route for each source
address. Again, no NAT or BGP.
Le 2012-10-24 15:12, Jussi Peltola a écrit :
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:43:14PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
What you need to multihome is either BGP or NAT. Exactly as in IPv4.
Nothing has changed. The only new thing with IPv6 is that there's
more bits.
Oh? I have two internet connections
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:30:21PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:12:33PM +0300, Jussi Peltola wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:43:14PM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
What you need to multihome is either BGP or NAT. Exactly as in IPv4.
Nothing has changed. The only
On 2012-10-24, Simon Perreault sperrea...@openbsd.org wrote:
One use case: ISP who wants to provide IPv4+IPv6 to customers, but does
not have enough IPv4 addresses for everyone, so has to NAT anyway, and
wants to simplify the operation of its edge network by running only one
protocol.
On 2012-10-24, Kurt Mosiejczuk kurt-openbsd-m...@se.rit.edu wrote:
Daniel Ouellet wrote:
Anyone have any possible explication that would actually justify the use
of NAT64 that I obviously overlooked?
The one use I could think of us to make your internal network
independent of your ISP.
re-reading this original mail... you're saying NAT64 (which is a form
of protocol translation used in conjunction with special DNS servers,
so v6-only hosts can reach v4 hosts if they are accessed by name)...
but I'm not sure if this matches what the rest of the mail is talking
about, which seems
Daniel,
I think you're confused between NAT66 and NAT64. [0]
T-Mobile USA optionally supports IPv6 connectivity in some limited
number of new phones (Galaxy Nexus etc) [1], and when the IPv6 option
is manually activated by the user^w beta-tester on their phone, then
no IPv4 support is provided,
47 matches
Mail list logo
