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

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb at cs.columbia.edu>]

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:41:37 -0800
Christian Huitema <huitema at windows.microsoft.com> wrote:

> 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.

I've used large, flat networks, and lived to regret it....
> 
> > > 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...
> 
No, but it requires v6 internally.


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.From ietf-bounces at ietf.org  Tue Dec  2 04:53:11 2008
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive at megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE32F3A695B;
	Tue,  2 Dec 2008 04:53:10 -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 2D7B23A695B
	for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>; Tue,  2 Dec 2008 04:53:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 eVrSprnM7TIb for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>;
	Tue,  2 Dec 2008 04:53:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from machshav.com (machshav.com [198.180.150.44])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D39D3A657C
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Tue,  2 Dec 2008 04:53:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by machshav.com (Postfix, from userid 512)
	id C3841AF687; Tue,  2 Dec 2008 12:53:04 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from yellowstone.machshav.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by machshav.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CCEDAF645;
	Tue,  2 Dec 2008 12:53:04 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by yellowstone.machshav.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33FCA838642;
	Tue,  2 Dec 2008 07:53:03 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 07:53:03 -0500
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb at cs.columbia.edu>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema at windows.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term	impactto
	applicationdevelopers
Message-ID: <20081202075303.36d26cec at cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: <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>
	<8EFB68EAE061884A8517F2A755E8B60A193CCC3C50 at NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Organization: Columbia University
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.6.1 (GTK+ 2.14.3; x86_64--netbsd)
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

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:41:37 -0800
Christian Huitema <huitema at windows.microsoft.com> wrote:

> 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.

I've used large, flat networks, and lived to regret it....
> 
> > > 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...
> 
No, but it requires v6 internally.


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smbedu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



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