Subject: Re: [v6ops] ULA #3 NPTv6 Use Case

From: Lee Howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 11:46:36 -0400

On 5/29/14 4:28 AM, "Liubing (Leo)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>Question 3:
>This question is derived from Question 2. Current draft only refers
>NPTv6, but might been other IPv6 NAT implementations available in the
>vehicle/IoT networks. Shall we expand the "ULA+NPTv6" case to a generic
>"ULA+IPv6 NAT" ?  (Note: NPTv6 is the only standardized IPv6 NAT
>mechanism so far) .

Trying to thread the need between useful and consensus. . .

As you note, there's no IPv6 NAT specification other than NPT66. There
hasn't been consensus to define it, and I think there is still not
consensus to do so.  Would it be useful to describe why it hasn't been
defined?  Or would it help if there were a separate document that this
Recommendations document could reference?

Lee

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 11:55:47 -0400

> Recommendations document could reference?

I would really love it if we could just avoid that entire hot potato.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 08:37:52 +1200

> I would really love it if we could just avoid that entire hot potato.

Please. It's just wasted bits.

How about just making a very short neutral statement:

The experimental proposal for Network Prefix Translation (NPTv6) [RFC6296]
observes that ULA prefixes could be translated, but this is not a recommended
solution.

   Brian

---

From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 09:41:36 +0900

> Recommendations document could reference?

It's also relevant to note that NPT66 is experimental, and that we have not
seen any reports of its deployment so far. The network that ostensibly
"needed it" on a large scale and rushed it through the IETF (the NTT NGN,
which needs it to get around complex regulatory issues which I won't bore
this thread with), has not yet deployed it because, guess what, it broke
their apps.