IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?)

Wed Jun 20 23:00:07 UTC 2012

Dave Hart wrote:

> Sure, there are folks out there who believe NAT gives them benefits.
> Some are actually sane (small multihomers avoiding BGP).

They are sane, because there is no proper support for multiple
addresses (as is demonstrated by a host with a v4 and a v6
addresses) nor automatic renumbering with neither v4 nor v6.

Here, v6 is guilty for lack of transparency because they are
the promised features of v6.

But, there are people, including me, still working on them
both with v4 and v6 and we know they are not a very hard
problems.

> You stand
> out as insane for attempting to redefine "transparent" to mean
> "inbound communication is possible

I just say it is as transparent as hosts directly connected
to the Internet with port based routing such as RSIP
[RFC3102] hosts:

: Abstract

:    This document examines the general framework of Realm Specific IP
:    (RSIP).  RSIP is intended as a alternative to NAT in which the end-
:    to-end integrity of packets is maintained.  We focus on
:    implementation issues, deployment scenarios, and interaction with
:    other layer-three protocols.

and despite IESG note on it, RSIP is transparent to IPsec if
SPI is regarded as port numbers.

> after negotatiation with multiple
> levels of NAT".

It will be necessary with, according to your definition,
insane configuration with multiple levels of NAT.

>> That is, end to end transparency can not be a reason to
>> insist on IPv6.
> 
> It certainly is, for those of us not arguing by redefinition.

The problem is that you are arguing against non existing
redefinitions.

					Masataka Ohta