All,
This is Akira Nakagawa, Tokyo.
Thank you very much for giving me a lot of comments at the presentation in
Minneapolis.
I'll try to reply all of them as follows, but if there are my misunderstands
and/or something I don't answer, reply to this ML again, please.
(Q1) This proposal leads extending the life of IPv4, so IPv6 will not deploy.
(A1) No, our goal is IPv6. NAT444 + Shared Address is designed for the co-
existing period. The purpose of this network is to access from IPv6 enabled
network to remaining IPv4 network.
(Q2) Size of Shared Address is too small for operators who need around /8*10
or more.
(A2) We haven't defined the size of Shared Address, but NAT444 + ISP Shared
Address Model is not designed for them. Such big operators should choose
other network model.
(Q3) Persuading one company to get Global Address and share it.
(A3) No, it loses registry system and if some accidents happen with this
address block, the company has to take responsibility. If some troubles
happen, the company may stop sharing the address block. To avoid this,
we need to define new address block so that every ISP can use and share.
(Q4) Possible to use 240/4 in ISP-controllable backbone instead of getting
Shared Address.
(A4) Miyakawa-san asnwered on Nov.25 (JST) on this ML.
(At least, in Japan,) now so many PCs are running as a CPE device.
Also, if a PC behind CPE in home network need to contact
any machine in a network X between LNS and CPE (see below),
and the network X is using Class E,
PC in the home can not send/receive any packets
to machines in the network X.
This is not good, because we should save any status on a LNS
as much as possible....
Please understand that we must needs to have new space
to keep existing devices in the home.
to/from the Internet
|
|
+--------+--------+
| Large Scale NAT |
+--------+--------+ +------------------------+
| |SOME SERVICE such as DNS|
| +------+-----------------+
| |
---------+-------------------------+--------- <- Network X
|
|
+----+-----+
| CPE |
+----+-----+
|
|
---------+------------ HOME NETWORK
|
+----+-----+
| PC |
+----------+
(Q5) When Multihoming with two ISPs, needed to consider the path selection
like RFC3484.
(A5) Customers who require Multihoming Service are not the target of NAT444
+ Shared Address model. They should use expensive service that uses Global
Address and/or Provider Independent Address (PI Address).
To do this service, ISP should manage the limited number of Global Address
in its network.
(Q6) Rewritten Source Address prevents 6to4 communication.
(A6) Nothing will change as today's typical network model.
The endures who can use 6to4 service have to use the nodes with Global IPv4
address.
Today, we cannot use 6to4 service because we use private address in our
local network. So nothing will change after introducing Shared Address.
(Q7) ISP Shared address will be used by end users.
(A7) Same case happens nowadays. If end users use Global Address block that
is same block as ISP's Global address block, address blocks will duplicate.
(Q8) Show the technical reason to use new IANA Unicast.
(A8) I showed the problem of RFC1918 private address at the page 4 of this
presentation in Minneapolis.
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/slides/intarea-1.pdf
Miyakawa-san showed the 240/4 problem at int-area@ ML. I copied it to this
mail at (Q5)/(A5) above.
So we need IANA Unicast block.
akira
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
