<div dir="ltr"><div>You can still do NAT with IPv6 like you ask for. It's been around over a decade now:</div><div><a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6296">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6296</a><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 at 12:02, Matthew Huff <<a href="mailto:mhuff@ox.com">mhuff@ox.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div class="gmail-m_-3881303301497847279WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Did you read his email? He was saying that what a lot of people wanted was IPv4 + bigger address space, and not any other changes. Speaking for myself, other than the bigger address space, for a corporate/enterprise environment I have yet
to see any advantages of IPv6 and many, many issues. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Information hiding, aka NAT is very important in the financial world.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For example, we have a directly peered connection with our clearing partner at our co-location. Both sides use NAT. This way either side can make a network change without having to involve the other partner.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here is what happens without NAT (circa 2008), and yes, this really happened:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
<li class="gmail-m_-3881303301497847279MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in">We needed to separate out process and move to a different server. The existing server IP couldn’t change since other partners had it in their access list.<u></u><u></u></li><li class="gmail-m_-3881303301497847279MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in">It took 9 weeks and:<u></u><u></u>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a">
<li class="gmail-m_-3881303301497847279MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in">3 conference calls including one with 30 participants from the clearing company<u></u><u></u></li><li class="gmail-m_-3881303301497847279MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in">2 approvals by committees at the clearing company<u></u><u></u></li></ol>
</li></ol>
<p class="gmail-m_-3881303301497847279MsoListParagraph"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="gmail-m_-3881303301497847279MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in">You can say that this was absurd and should be changed. Yes, but it won’t and we have no control over them.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="gmail-m_-3881303301497847279MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="gmail-m_-3881303301497847279MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in">With NAT we can change internal IP addresses at any time as long as we update the NAT tables.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="gmail-m_-3881303301497847279MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="gmail-m_-3881303301497847279MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in">This is not something important at ISP or hosting providers, but it’s many issues like this in the corporate world that prevent IPv6 adoption. Things like static addressing, consistent behavior of IPv6 across
different operating systems including disabling SLAAC, privacy addressing and others.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="gmail-m_-3881303301497847279MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="gmail-m_-3881303301497847279MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in">Based on my experience and people on tech mailing list that are oriented toward enterprises, I would bet that IPv6 deployment (with global addresses) is significantly less than 10% nor is it on their horizon.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="gmail-m_-3881303301497847279MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Matthew Huff</span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> | Director of Technical Operations | OTA Management LLC<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:4pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Office: 914-460-4039<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><a href="mailto:mhuff@ox.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">mhuff@ox.com</span></a> | </span></i><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a href="http://www.ox.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">www.ox.com</span></a><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:gray">...........................................................................................................................................<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> NANOG <nanog-bounces+mhuff=<a href="mailto:ox.com@nanog.org" target="_blank">ox.com@nanog.org</a>> <b>
On Behalf Of </b>Tom Beecher<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, March 17, 2022 7:41 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:borg@uu3.net" target="_blank">borg@uu3.net</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org" target="_blank">nanog@nanog.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: V6 still not supported<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(49,49,49)">“It seems all the market needed was IPv4 with bigger address space.<br>
Instead of delivering it, some contraption has been created trying to solve<br>
non-existant (or already fixed) problems.”</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(49,49,49)">your argument against IPv6 is that they should have created a new version of IPv4, but bigger? </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(49,49,49)">So… IPv6?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 06:32 <<a href="mailto:borg@uu3.net" target="_blank">borg@uu3.net</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">It seems team developing IPv6 had ONE way of doing things, <br>
with is actually recipe for disaster. Why? Because they were building an IP<br>
protocol. Something that will be using globally by ALL networks around.<br>
Not some local IOT (useless) shit used here and there.<br>
Thats why such IP protocol should be follow KISS concept and flexibility.<br>
Some people have different vision how to run network. And because<br>
Inter-net is an AS to AS network they should have right to do so.<br>
<br>
In my opinion all that crypto stuff should be put layer upper because<br>
crypto is hard, very hard and can get obsolete quickly.<br>
<br>
Its same about other weird things embedded into IPv6 that probably<br>
should go layer up. And now people wonder why IPv6 adoption is crap and <br>
there is high resistance. IPv4 made mistakes too, but hell, it was the first.<br>
<br>
It seems all the market needed was IPv4 with bigger address space.<br>
Instead of delivering it, some contraption has been created trying to solve<br>
non-existant (or already fixed) problems.<br>
<br>
Just my 2 cents...<br>
<br>
<br>
---------- Original message ----------<br>
<br>
From: William Allen Simpson <<a href="mailto:william.allen.simpson@gmail.com" target="_blank">william.allen.simpson@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: NANOG <<a href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org" target="_blank">nanog@nanog.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: V6 still not supported<br>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 22:24:14 -0400<br>
<br>
I'd wanted to clearly distinguish this from the old methods:<br>
<br>
This is intended to replace ARP, ICMP Router Advertisement, ICMP<br>
Redirect, ICMP Information, ICMP Mask, and OSPF Hello in the [IPv6]<br>
environment. There are also elements of the OSI ES-IS and IS-IS Hello.<br>
<br>
We were forward looking to deployments of thousands of systems per link, rather<br>
than the 30 maximum under then current ethernet standards. We needed fewer<br>
announcements, less chatty traffic, and more specific traffic designation.<br>
<br>
We also prioritized network security. Moreover requiring addresses be<br>
ephemeral,<br>
such that applications would not be able to tie authentication/authorization to<br>
an<br>
IPv6 address and would be motivated to use cryptographic security.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately, later committees decided that rather than a single simpler<br>
secured<br>
address assignment scheme, we needed unsecured SLAAC and duplicate DHCPv6.<br>
Three ways to do the same thing are always a recipe for disaster.<br>
<br>
Reminder: I was an operator and one of the original NANOG members.<br>
<br>
We spent a lot of time considering human factors. I'd pioneered the<br>
"Operational Considerations" section of the original draft RFCs.<br>
<br>
IPv6 is a case study of what happens with committee-itis.<br>
<br>
The small design team worked well.<u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div>