Subject: Re: [homenet] Routing protocol comparison document

From: James Woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 10:45:35 -0800

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Dave Taht <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> [...]
> The next version of cerowrt will do translation from the external IPv6
> address range to a static internal one (or ones, in the case of
> multiple egress gateways), and lacking a standard for such will use
> fcxx/8 addressing. I will make it be an option for people to turn off,
> but I've had it with being renumbered.
>

And so it begins.

> I am sure this will break stuff, and I don't know what all it will do,
> and I intend to find out.
>

I'd prefer that we simply consider CeroWRT with this change to be
fundamentally broken, and begin by keeping track of the things that still
work with it, rather than what it breaks.

> Until some far off day where we have stable name to ipv6 address
> mapping, and vice versa, it is otherwise impossible to have useful
> ipv6 based services inside the home or small business.
>

Doesn't seem impossible to me. Too difficult? I could agree with that, but
I would have to say it's the ubiquitous RFC 6092 filters that are going to
kill that idea before the frequent renumbering does. Seriously, people: we
could give up on the IPv6 servers on home and small business networks thing
any day now, and I don't think we would lose much steam. Given that those
filters are everywhere and turned on by default in most cases, it's only
just a little bit worse if home gateways are using NPTv6 too.

It's not like you could use working address referral if you wanted.

(p.s. I'm aware of at least one other serious proposal to use NPTv6 in a
shipping home gateway. It would be easier to argue against it if those RFC
6092 filters weren't installed everywhere.)

-- 
james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Nest Labs, Communications Engineering

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 19:59:29 +0100

>> If we carry NAT over to IPV6, then shame on us.

> I am sorry, I no longer share this opinion [...]  The next version of
> cerowrt will do translation from the external IPv6 address range to
> a static internal one (or ones, in the case of multiple egress
> gateways),

(Insert strong expression of disagreement here.  Use any means available
to convince Dave otherwise, including flattery, threats, demagoguery, ad
hominem attacks and photographs of cute animals.)

-- Juliusz

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:50:04 -0500

> On Mar 2, 2015, at 1:59 PM 3/2/15, Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Are you at least following NPTv6, RFC 6296?

> hominem attacks and photographs of cute animals.)

Photographs of threats to cute animals?  "Don't code IPv6 address translation or the kitten gets it!"

> 
> -- Juliusz
> 
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 00:04:39 +0100

> Hahaha. Thanks juliusz! I have laughed far too little in the past few
> weeks.

But I'm dead serious, Dave.  I'm actually making my serious face right now.

Just looking at stuff I'm intimately familiar with, you're breaking:

  - the IPv6 PEX code in Transmission, which assumes that if you call
    connect on an IPv6 UDP socket, then getsockname will return
    a currently usable IPv6 address;
  - the IPv6 DHT code in Tranmission, which assumes that calling the same
    sequence as above will return a host's currently preferred IPv6
    address (Kademlia needs a bound socket, changing IPs per destination
    breaks the algorithm);
  - Matthieu's multipath Mosh, which puts the server's local IPv6
    addresses on the wire.

Dave, let's please find a way to solve the renumbering problem in a way
that doesn't break applications.

-- Juliusz