RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers

[Christian Huitema <huitema at windows.microsoft.com>]

> I'm not sure I believe in the need for topology hiding.  But if I did,
> on v6 I'd just allocate a separate subnet or group of subnets for
> external access.  If really necessary, have such hosts set up IP over
> IP or L2TP tunnels to a concentrator; that will make this external
> access net look flat.

That idea has been advanced quite a few times, but there is not a whole lot of code written or products deployFrom ietf-bounces at ietf.org  Mon Dec  1 22:41:36 2008
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-web-archive at megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-web-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7F4928C13F;
	Mon,  1 Dec 2008 22:41:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 165B628C13F
	for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>; Mon,  1 Dec 2008 22:41:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.274
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.274 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=0.325, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8,
	USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id mFI-6imjvVML for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>;
	Mon,  1 Dec 2008 22:41:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (smtp.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C7AF28C13D
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Mon,  1 Dec 2008 22:41:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tk1-exhub-c103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.46.187) by
	TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with
	Microsoft
	SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.291.1; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:41:30 -0800
Received: from tk5-exmlt-w601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com
	(157.54.18.32) by tk1-exhub-c103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
	(157.54.46.187)
	with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.291.1; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:41:30 -0800
Received: from NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com
	([fe80::8de9:51a2:cd62:f122]) by
	tk5-exmlt-w601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.18.32])
	with mapi; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:42:57 -0800
From: Christian Huitema <huitema at windows.microsoft.com>
To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb at cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:41:37 -0800
Subject: RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term	impactto
	applicationdevelopers
Thread-Topic: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term	impactto
	applicationdevelopers
Thread-Index: AclUL7EclzGwfTzhTg+7I9ach0kJkwAF7dIQ
Message-ID: <8EFB68EAE061884A8517F2A755E8B60A193CCC3C50 at NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
References: <200811262240.mAQMeC6Z045877 at drugs.dv.isc.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.33.0811261455520.28290-100000 at egate.xpasc.com>
	<075101c9501d$1344cf00$39ce6d00$ at net>
	<2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C316615572FFBB6 at mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
	<FA256DDD-5C7B-4AD4-A8AA-ADC368F37162 at cisco.com>
	<CE67747D-DE1F-47BB-982B-9080DBAE9CB5 at muada.com>
	<8EFB68EAE061884A8517F2A755E8B60A193CCC3BF8 at NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
	<20081201223833.4cb6bedf at cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20081201223833.4cb6bedf at cs.columbia.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com>, Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com>,
	IETF Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org

> I'm not sure I believe in the need for topology hiding.  But if I did,
> on v6 I'd just allocate a separate subnet or group of subnets for
> external access.  If really necessary, have such hosts set up IP over
> IP or L2TP tunnels to a concentrator; that will make this external
> access net look flat.

That idea has been advanced quite a few times, but there is not a whole lot of code written or producted. There are a few interesting issues, e.g. the cost of tunneling versus in terms of overhead or management, or the deployment of adequate source address selection policies.

Actually, rather than tunneling, have we seriously consider flat host based routing in a corporate network? A combination of DHT and caching technologies ought to make that quite scalable.

> > Of course, Iljitsch points an interesting issue. If NAT66 behaves
> > exactly like, say, NAT 64, then why would the organization bother to
> > use IPv6 rather than sticking with net 10?
>
> Services like Microsoft DirectAccess?

Direct Access certainly does not require that enterprises deploy NAT66...

-- Christian Huitema


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


s deployed. There are a few interesting issues, e.g. the cost of tunneling versus in terms of overhead or management, or the deployment of adequate source address selection policies.

Actually, rather than tunneling, have we seriously consider flat host based routing in a corporate network? A combination of DHT and caching technologies ought to make that quite scalable.

> > Of course, Iljitsch points an interesting issue. If NAT66 behaves
> > exactly like, say, NAT 64, then why would the organization bother to
> > use IPv6 rather than sticking with net 10?
>
> Services like Microsoft DirectAccess?

Direct Access certainly does not require that enterprises deploy NAT66...

-- Christian Huitema


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf