David Morris wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
If your OS requires a reboot when you renumber get a real OS.
If your apps require that they restart when you renumber get
your apps fixed.
I fail to understand how an app such as ssh can maintain a secure
connection in the face of renumbering.
That is probably because you appear to have failed to read the top half of
that post. An external ssh session will break during renumbering, no matter
what nat capability might exist, so the only thing worth discussing is an
internal one. Deploying a ULA prefix alongside whatever external one might
exist will allow the internal ssh to persist forever while the external
prefix is changed on a minute by minute basis.
Yet many of my ssh sessions are
active for days or weeks quite happily and their existance represents
my
mid term memory about what I'm working on.
Clearly none of those are external, or there is no actual renumbering going
on.
Creating a new connection represents a restart from my perspective.
Some
amount of my activity is lost and if I don't directly control when the
renumbering happens, it can be at a very in-opportune time in terms of
my
productivity.
No argument about the impact, but you have not demonstrated a need for 66nat
beyond wanting it so that nothing changes except the size of the address.
This will not be true on a number of fronts, so perpetuating an
architectural impediment in a futile attempt to avoid reality is not a
reasonable argument.
Vendors will build what you say you want to buy, so don't box yourself in by
insisting on perpetuating the past without trying to move beyond it first...
Tony
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf