On 07/30/2012 06:03 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
On Jul 30, 2012, at 17:22 , Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
On 07/30/2012 05:21 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
On Jul 30, 2012, at 11:08 , Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
If we believe that ipv6 is ready to go for mass deployment, why do we
not pressure home router vendors to default to sending router advertisements
with ULA addresses that, if necessary, get NAT'd at the border just like
192.168 space does today.
I mean, nothing bad would happen, right?
What does the conditional phrase "if necessary" mean in your mind? Under what
circumstances do you imagine this would not be "necessary" for operational continuity?
When you have native v6 connectivity.
On Jul 30, 2012, at 17:23 , Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
I should add that by native v6 connectivity, you'd also be getting a provider
public v6 as well where rfc3484 saves the day.
I thought as much. Here's why I considered that idea and rejected it when I
was thinking about this problem in the context of a certain home router
product. What happens when I have a persistent connection from my ULA address
through the NAT64 path to a remote IPv4 address when the router acquires IPv6
connectivity?
+ If we stop translating all packets to and from the ULA address, then that
connection is broken.
+ If we only stop translating packets for new flows, then we effectively break
3rd-party referral for the 64:ff9b::/64 prefix.
+ If we continue translating every packet, potentially in perpetuity, then we
break locality of uniqueness by leaking our ULA routability into the global
IPv4 Internet.
It seemed clear to me that all of these options collectively exhausted the
available alternatives, and they all came with damaging outcomes without any
real benefit visible to anyone that I could identify, so I decided not to
pursue the idea very vigorously.
I didn't understand your second bullet. So is this a cutover problem or worse?
Even if it's persistent, it surely needs to be able to cope with the connection
being briefly broken.
And of course, such a router or provider would still need to deal with v4-only
sites.
Mike
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
