Margaret Wasserman wrote:
For homes? Or larger enterprises?
The problem is that the line is gray between the two.
My original 6AI BOF request suggested multiple work items, two of
which were:
(1) An information (or BCP?) document on how to build a home gateway
for IPv6 that includes a firewall (for simple security) and prefix
delegation, etc. for easy configuration, but no NAT functionality.
(2) NAT66 to provide address independence for enterprises.
Do we think that home users (regular home users, not us) actually need
address independence, or they would be happy to get their addresses
from their ISP via PD and to be renumbered when/if needed?
Regular home users, likely not (so your #1 is fine for that). Very large
enterprises will probably get PI space and may or may not feel like the
need a NAT66. Medium-sized businesses, particularly those on a budget,
may well opt for "Business Broadband" - e.g., get a residential-type
broadband service, and use it for their business. They certainly do
today for IPv4 service, so I don't know why they would do otherwise for
IPv6.
This is all really just crystal-ball gazing, but if one of the reasons
we are going to build NAT66 openly in the IETF is to avoid vendors
building it themselves, I find it hard to believe that targeting /48
only will suffice. Certainly, if /48 service (along with a "compatible
with IETF NAT66" bullet-point in the SLA) comes at a premium in terms of
monthly service fees vs., say, a /56 or otherwise, then you've given an
incentive to small router vendors to build something that allows one to
get all the advantages of /48-type service with a /56 service contract.
Voila, the vendor gets to reap the difference between the service fees
for /48 vs. /56... Much like they did for a /32 vs. /30 (or "multiple
IP" service) in IPv4.... see where I'm going with this?
Point is, once the genie is out of the bottle, I don't think it is
realistic to think that we can keep it backed into a /48 corner.
Special-casing /48 may be worthwhile, but we need to somehow address the
rest. Going "halfway" here could well be a classic worst of both worlds
situation (i.e, we should either define NAT66 in full, or not at all).
If we view NAT66 as applicable to home networks, I agree that we will
need to handle prefixes longer than /48. However, I expect that most
enterprises will get /48 or larger.
If the line between "home" and "enterprise" were solid, I would agree
with you. But, it's not today, and (sadly) I don't think we can assume
it will be for IPv6.
- Mark
Margaret
On Mar 28, 2009, at 11:29 PM, Mark Townsley wrote:
My ISP currently hands out a /60 via 6rd (space gets a little tight
with the embedded IPv4 address). The BBF is settling on /56 as its
recommended prefix size for residential customers. I've seen /64's
out there as well (and stomped on them as quickly as possible, but
can only do so much).
I have to agree that we must expect that variable prefix sizes to
sites will be a reality.
- Mark
[email protected] wrote:
>From my perspective the NAT solution that might be specified within
6AI should be able to deal also with prefixes shorter, equal or
_longer_ than a /48 since there might be ISPs giving out such longer
prefixes to their customers.
(A reason for that are the changed RIR policies that allow the ISPs
freely to decide if they want to give a /48, a /56 or even a /61 to
its customers.)
Removing the /48 assumption will have major impact e.g. on Margarets
draft.
br olaf
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
