Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal
Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Fri, 12 March 2021 14:18 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 B4BF03A105F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 06:18:34 -0800 (PST)
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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 08FqqSYjj1GU for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 06:18:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x335.google.com (mail-wm1-x335.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::335]) (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 4AA6E3A1083 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 06:18:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x335.google.com with SMTP id 124-20020a1c00820000b029010b871409cfso15888647wma.4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 06:18:33 -0800 (PST)
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=na2bTugPPohE9y15vQIuKaHIG0Wzu+JBkCdQBoFNP0Y=; b=Re3dKUaGMBNrxNRwjKruowaHAap4EZ5T7x6303vXucXXVKBMauddZvDdyJybnck9YV rVBMtFdc5XB4X+ngv2vbnhGsPWNEaQK3NGCzHvpwPxF8ZB/tKMEVt+f/fyY3ERDW3dRM R2y3tmwhQXDh5CKW0mA4i9++I93eAZWSsl5y5JuORDDPIsA0AwjCCCO5hLvFY4MqkMpI qjBWrSTDuLNVnf+lLuZVQ5f4KutKRdUq+X7+6tcispUhRfx6dYoR1nbMmukT5jO4+11c cXMFccH5SVUKjNgw0u96/0uMf8qkweqEzkvtrznGCIu4b8aJePJyDXBgeEJP2b5Ax+MM JGmA==
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=na2bTugPPohE9y15vQIuKaHIG0Wzu+JBkCdQBoFNP0Y=; b=kQbumim3wTpyM6RJx5pn7UQN9Y2rggUOD2tyTKbxq9RYbkmS0P1Dl5ZvkevIzzJHI6 BSXXQBTjlSPbgl2Yemk0MhOJcWBhdw9mCMxC92l6dovMxDU8PcdWnqQH0DnMY23rxrnz vV+SAloyXB4ulJ7sgQZ4MKyGQrKa2VXO68mxhvnRll9tBcRAc0fvxd0Ol5HU+ImMxAAW wZwgDh2xNH8PVzNKL+h00FUt6ylGkmAhWRLeg9AnkzUF4ROf/bG5bQvE+fJQe0q6803I I0SsBBMxLMnmpwq4owD9qx0MaKxr6IfjUrEMDiCtAh+hHOXMXdk0fc91zMNkYob+SWlh tdPg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5333MXq5jMJja5tcKem0l90Hu7c19HTQnjzQMLFzVTV6t+oh3ICY K7/qrm2UmaaNnMkUOpvdLyU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy9Oz1BaLuWmfuczPgalyQT20dV1+0AM3ZteBAaQuD8e9QmSKiwDuCdprAiNsROpDSL2NHOxQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:7415:: with SMTP id p21mr13562216wmc.187.1615558710173; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 06:18:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.199] (c-24-5-53-184.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.5.53.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x25sm2711934wmj.14.2021.03.12.06.18.28 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Mar 2021 06:18:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <C6E19555-A636-4815-89E3-5B3B68B779CD@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B7CF9EDE-966C-4E1F-B974-487BA9951E09"; 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: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 06:18:24 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau1+Pc658VY_oWJS+ooNLw8+Y59ma2nuY1jbzcecaO=fxg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Nico Schottelius <nico.schottelius@ungleich.ch>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
To: David Farmer <farmer=40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org>
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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/njjKujm8OYH_byzZleKI1uk-ymc>
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: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 14:18:35 -0000
David, > On Mar 11, 2021, at 6:26 PM, David Farmer <farmer=40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > ... > It is fairly common for Community Networks, especially wireless ones to use RFC 1918 for IPv4 and ULA for IPv6, and interconnect with other Community Networks over tunnels on donated ISP connectivity from participants or others. Ham radio is a good metaphor for this type of networking. > I disagree that Ham Radio (aka Amateur Radio) a good metaphor. Amateur Radio is regulated by the ITU and countries, call signs are allocated by central authorities, radio frequencies are assigned, and there are rules for the types of traffic that can be sent. For example, no commercial use. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_radio for details. Bob / KI6ASK
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Nick Hilliard
- Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal Joe Touch
- 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 IPvā¦ 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