Subject: RE: avoiding NAT with IPv6

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:05:43 -0800

> Aleksey wrote:
> Speaking seriously, it seems to me that people underestimate
> both how easy is to do NAT6 even without any official
> blessing and how hard is to fight against market forces.

Not me. I mostly agree with the "resistance is futile" you posted
earlier. That being said, it's not a reason to encourage it.

> IMHO being NAT6-neutral/NAT6-friendly would at least
> reduce its commercial attractivness (similar to drug
> legalization).

I have to disagree with this for NAT6. 

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:11:52 -0800

Margaret,

>> Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> IMHO the real solution to this and some other
>> problems we are currently seeing in IPv6 is
>> really one thing which must be solved before
>> anything else: IPv6 Multihoming

> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> I'm not sure how IPv6 Multihoming applies here.
> Could you explain?

Scalable "PI-like" identifiers are a by-product of some multihoming
solutions (this is the identifier/locator thing). It has been discussed
whether or not to limit their scope to multihomers only, but in any case
generalizing the multihoming solution to singlehomers to provide the
benefits of a "PI-like" is a matter of policy, not protocol.

In other words: it is possible indeed to look at solving the problem of
PI scalability as a self-contained issue, but why? This is so deeply
related to multihoming that the best way is to make sure that
by-products of multihoming solutions do indeed provide a scalable
PI-like solution for singlehomers.

Michel.

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:09:57 -0800

> Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Nevertheless it would be great if loadbalancers sported IPv6
> as it would mean that they also could handle huge sites like
> CNN and Google which would be one way to allow them to upgrade
> to IPv6.

Yep. As I have said before, as long as CNN, Google, eBay, eTrade, Yahoo
and consorts are not IPv6 enabled (which also means multihomed for these
guys) IPv6 does not exist for the general public.

The need for load balancers today is not too much performance (a dual
P4Xeon with tons of two-way interleaved memory and 533 FSB can deliver
something between OC-3 and OC-12 speeds) but with un-interrupted
service. For these guys, there is no such thing as taking the server
off-line maintenance. The nice thing with load balancers is that they
allow to "busy-out" a server in the pool, when all active connections
are gone it can be rebooted and/or upgraded.

Michel.