ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers

2008-11-27 12:34:41
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 19:17, Ned Freed 
<ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com> wrote:

I would NAT66 my network for the simple reason that very few endpoint
devices
actually tollerate a change in the IP address without at a minimum a
service
interruption. Since I cannot guarantee that my IPv6 address from my ISP
will
never change I am going to NAT66 my internal network for the sake of
having
static numbering inside the network.

Bingo. That's exactly the reason long-term I'll probably do it too.

And even this assumes that renumbering support of any kind manifests in a
useful way. The absolutely dismal state of support for IPv6 in SOHO-grade
routers is IMO one of the orimary current impediments for IPv6 deployment.
And
when IPv6 support does start to show up in these boxes, I really have to
wonder
if they'll get automatic renumbering right, assuming it's supported at all.

The more infrequent you posit the need for renumbering is, the greater my
reluctance to allowing it will become. If you have a network event that
happens
only once a year it is going to mean a very serious disruption when it
happens.
DHCP only solves some of the problems, I am still effectively forced to
perform
a reboot, I will lose connections and this will cost me real time and
money to
fix.

I went for something like 10 years without having to renumber, and as a
result
IP addresses got put in all sorts of nooks and crannies on my network. Then
suddenly and without warning my ISP announced an emeergency numbering
change
due to an upstream provider switch. The announcement went out at 11:00PM
Sunday
night; the renumbering occurred the next morning.

It is a bit of an understatement to say I was not a happy camper. And then
it
happened again a week or so later - easier because I had notes on all the
stuff
that needed changing plus I'd switched to DHCP as much as possible, but
still
no picnic. And then I had to renumber again when I switched ISPs ;-) But
that
should be the last time because I took the opportunity to switch to 1:1 NAT
and
private address space.

In any case, I think getting renumbering right and getting it deployed is
an
essential step in minimizing the use of NAT66.


There are many drafts out there on renumbering, maybe we need to review them
to see how they fit in this issue or if NAT would do away with the need for
them. This is the analysis I am asking for.

Eric
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>