Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal
Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Mon, 15 March 2021 17:28 UTC
Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFDEC3A17FF
for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 10:28:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44])
by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id dNH8k5nKV_L3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Mon, 15 Mar 2021 10:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32b.google.com (mail-wm1-x32b.google.com
[IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32b])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 516703A17FE
for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 10:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id 12so3577724wmf.5
for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 10:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to
:references; bh=JJ5Qv1Mzo3Ntfrh8V+5EKZayuES/yBmk/v006Aepgqk=;
b=kVs4LYtfDSK4nj2z1xALEl77DoXzQBD0hQgkGtzVk30OuJqZ8fyKEJYTWAKR3VrjWE
p7FUmxnujWjnqZGDo4LqXkjHWGJ9iMH9PXrVbF2FJsukhFM8eqHLaR3qGrK1rndGwCJ6
BC/tVaKeFjiMGOjsqELqgdiAHITGRYiunbVlrbu0WeVtNmYloFk9+qCoRi+qF6WHY7LL
cwOSI/+qHIcLysFifzijB/sPhtNozOYJNqAOeVscHWrNZ753QW7QogkwBnFcW2DhOw7o
F1akAqt2P3e9jX+E+s2YXwL7joWWP3T7FvvdD3iTwrhupBzF5V46aU4PAgITR5gwI9Jg
NBhg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date
:in-reply-to:cc:to:references;
bh=JJ5Qv1Mzo3Ntfrh8V+5EKZayuES/yBmk/v006Aepgqk=;
b=eCnJBLdZC/fUveKDU2KIPJhFMWm9Qyjz6xK8Vg3OHA0x+Pon5oI9IB9bNHqkShVs6F
GmubDVpoN8P65sxLCel8PAAkrONzmfWQoIMEAl+1/U7Umhe46vjPhaHdTU3wf3bB40Fr
JaTu2O5dNlumrqQ/B71mLLRtILSqPky8Wp9/IGAPsj0LuKjYFB4n1/MwB6Qw0RktMF3R
sYWG9nemig6Auv2425EIZlS2i9fO+3VYswCCJcpm8aRywQ+TmuFH1AG9fx4zoH+yUj4B
9arDatmhGeHF9hzHwbyGcZWyANpVk4ggWBHf/mai26ReXpPlazOX4765tsY6iqdvwvZW
Ir2A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53114QUPLy5R66nCnFDDvK2vYyAR8aIsi7+LaalkNEI3Sve3VBhy
4CNmj0dgmAI7DhJi3RYuFFg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxQnPsuGvvJbHefB3oXveUnROexWbVfPSJBm0mUP5JNgU+bprqAf17MkYbxDfDKBwRzJt0N1w==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:4f94:: with SMTP id
n20mr763822wmq.18.1615829333769;
Mon, 15 Mar 2021 10:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:461:d438:e87f:b351:259b?
([2601:647:5a00:461:d438:e87f:b351:259b])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s12sm299160wmj.28.2021.03.15.10.28.51
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Mon, 15 Mar 2021 10:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <BC18C8B1-7D29-4EE1-A9EB-70B4218CE858@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_3679BF78-EBA2-4464-856E-67BCD81B8AAB";
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\))
Subject: Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 10:28:49 -0700
In-Reply-To: <d0f2a06b-1d48-d43e-b962-5a695f154b73@gmail.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>,
Nico Schottelius <nico.schottelius@ungleich.ch>,
David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>,
Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
To: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <CAMm+LwjNiE0P7RAVqzKMypNbh3=9BeqiWn_hGv3E=zX7-YmSXQ@mail.gmail.com>
<72F969A9-AF94-47B6-B48C-B3CD4D9A7C72@strayalpha.com>
<7cc9e38c-5a00-ec59-a8c2-10503cc40d50@si6networks.com>
<CB1A6DF0-8CDD-495D-9F7B-80BF72F08C1E@strayalpha.com>
<53d7190a-3e1f-66b3-0574-8e8fbb3a7a5e@si6networks.com>
<90718D2A-3483-45D2-A5FB-205659D4DCDB@cisco.com>
<87h7li0z2t.fsf@line.ungleich.ch>
<253e084c-6ced-7f94-c909-bd44f7c53529@network-heretics.com>
<CAN-Dau2YCvCfWmPwGhF8q2c5fMDCbMhNBDA180x1o1Y9ZQga7Q@mail.gmail.com>
<ae98f990-a063-70a2-5244-8aca0d19be44@gmail.com>
<CAN-Dau3pV7y7g=QxGwipPUAQgf-TXE41MJGK47oUeSaNx5COng@mail.gmail.com>
<0d364d72-44e3-27bc-fc15-c3c30da4522c@gmail.com>
<CAN-Dau1+Pc658VY_oWJS+ooNLw8+Y59ma2nuY1jbzcecaO=fxg@mail.gmail.com>
<87h7ldpuv0.fsf@ungleich.ch> <d0f2a06b-1d48-d43e-b962-5a695f154b73@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/DOXU2C3WgFblavgFFxDviwQJPRs>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>,
<mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
<mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 17:28:58 -0000
Brian, > On Mar 14, 2021, at 12:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >> >> ULA is very dominant in these networks and it's probably also one of the >> sources we got the first requests for establishing the ULA registry. > > I can only repeat: if you want action from the IETF (and remember that > on certain matters iesg@ietf can give instructions to the IANA), the case > has to be made via an I-D. Facts, numbers, use case. Getting an RFC that > sets up a first-come first-served ULA-C system isn't an impossible dream, > but it is work. That would open up the entire fc00::/8 space. > I agree. I have always thought that the biggest issue for ULA-C is who maintains the central registry. It needs to be free or very low cost, and permanent. Bob
- Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Joe Touch
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Nick Hilliard
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal John Levine
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Nick Hilliard
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Fernando Gont
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Fernando Gont
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Fernando Gont
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal John R Levine
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Christopher Morrow
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal George Michaelson
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Michael Richardson
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal John R Levine
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Nick Hilliard
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Masataka Ohta
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Michael Richardson
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Joseph Touch
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Nick Hilliard
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Nick Hilliard
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Christian Huitema
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Christian Huitema
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Nick Hilliard
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Fernando Gont
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Eliot Lear
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Masataka Ohta
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Joe Touch
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Fernando Gont
- e2e [was: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Fernando Gont
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Joe Touch
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Fernando Gont
- Re: e2e [was: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal] Fernando Gont
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Joel M. Halpern
- Re: e2e [was: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal] Joseph Touch
- Re: e2e [was: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal] Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Unique 128 bit identifiers. Was: Non routable IPv⦠Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Nico Schottelius
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Keith Moore
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal David Farmer
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal David Farmer
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal David Farmer
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Fred Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal David Farmer
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal David Farmer
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Bob Hinden
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal David Farmer
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Nico Schottelius
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Nico Schottelius
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Bob Hinden
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Keith Moore
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Nick Hilliard
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Bob Hinden
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal David Farmer
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Nick Hilliard