Subject: RE: [midcom] RE: Some comments on scenario draft

From: "Zmolek, Andrew (Andrew)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 11:45:00 -0600

Regardless of the plan of record, it seems quite clear that most
enterprises have countless reasons to stick with IPv4 in their network
core for decades. Moving to IPv6, as experience in the Asia-Pacific
region bears out, is fundamentally a function of address space (at least
that's what is driving this today). Hence, it will be a mistake not to
assume that an IPv4 core to IPv6 edge won't be a commonly deployed
topology over the next decade at least.

Perhaps this is beyond the scope of midcom. But we need to be very
careful about our assumptions here. Does midcom today make any
assumptions with respect to v4 <-> v6 transit? Correct me if I'm wrong,
but I believe this is merely an issue of capturing scenarios at this
point. Nevertheless, I think Cedric raises some valid issues worth
addressing in our scenarios.

--Andy Zmolek
    Technology & Standards Engineer
      CTO Standards
        Avaya Inc.

            [email-masked]
              +1 720 444 4001

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Huitema [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 10:59 AM
To: Cedric Aoun; Midcom IETF (E-mail)
Subject: [midcom] RE: Some comments on scenario draft

The plan of record for IPv6 is indeed that you will not use address
translation and IPv6; frankly, if you still used NAT, there would be
little reason to move to IPv6 in the first place! What I point out in
the scenario is, what changes when IPv6 gives you global addressing.

You are right about discovery. The "signaling server" has to understand
the location of the firewalls in order to open the proper holes. This is
not in scope for MIDCOM the scenarios merely assume that discovery
somehow happens, and that the server knows which firewall will be used.
That should definitely work in the main cases, when there is exactly one
firewall per domain, or maybe one firewall cluster.

-- Christian Huitema 

-----Original Message-----
From: Cedric Aoun [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 7:43 AM
To: Christian Huitema; Midcom IETF (E-mail)
Subject: Some comments on scenario draft

Christian, 
I have a couple of minor comments on the draft: 
-I'm not quite sure that basic NAT (1 address to 1 address mapping) will
be completely forgotten in IPv6, enterprises will still would like to
have a certain independence from their ISP since the used addresses are
provided by the ISP and they don't want to change their addresses when
they change their ISP.
-In big corporations we could have a lot of cases where the signaling
flow will traverse a different Middle box than the bearer path, this is
a realistic scenario.
It won't happen for residential customers and SME (might happen) but for
big corporations having several gateways it will happen.
I know that middle box discovery is out of scope of the workgroup, and
that is the main reason why this scenario is not in your draft but I
think it is worth to
note it. 
I'm sure that other people in the list are interested in this scenario
as well. 
Feedback is welcomed 
Regards 
Cedric Aoun 
Nortel Networks 
33, quai Paul Doumer 
Paris La Defense 
92415 Courbevoie Cedex France 
Gsm +33 6 85 74 43 04 
Fax  +33 1 46215598 
[email-masked] 

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

---

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 13:39:58 -0700

Even a single PC is expected to use multiple IPv6 addresses, if you turn
on privacy protection. We fully expect that home users will receive a
prefix, not a single address.

-----Original Message-----
From: Francois Audet [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 1:24 PM
To: 'Keith Moore'
Cc: Christian Huitema; Cedric Aoun; 'Midcom IETF (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: [midcom] RE: Some comments on scenario draft

The case I was thinking about is the residential user which want 
his multiple PCs to access the network, but wants to pay for one 
address. 

> From: Keith Moore [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 1:04 PM 
> To: Audet, Francois [SC2:4K02:EXCH] 
> Cc: 'Christian Huitema'; Aoun, Cedric [QPD:0000:EXCH]; 'Midcom IETF 
> (E-mail)' 
> Subject: Re: [midcom] RE: Some comments on scenario draft 
> 
> 
> > I'm afraid that if ISPs charge per IP address, there will 
> continue to be 
> > NATs. 
> 
> with 6to4, even a single IPv4 address provides 2**80 IPv6 addresses, 
> which is more than enough for most organizations.  
> 
> so I'd revise your statement to say: if ISPs charge more for a /48 in 
> IPv6 than they do for a /32 in IPv4, there will continue to be 6to4 
> boxes. 
> 
> we should view NAT and v6 as complementary approaches rather than as 
> competing ones.  NAT gives you the ability to interoperate between 
> v4 hosts even when there are not enough v4 addresses to go around; 
> NAT-PT gives you the ability to interoperate between v4 and v4. 
> v6 gives you the ability to address each host individually, which is 
> essential to support applications that cannot work through NATs. 
> 
> I fully expect to find NAT, NAT-PT, and IPv6/6to4 in the same box, 
> each handling different kinds of connections. 
> 
> Keith 
>