IETF Logo Mail Archive

[IPv6]Re: Analysis of Ungleich ULA Registry

Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org> Thu, 23 May 2024 02:03 UTC

Return-Path: <krose@krose.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5F6DC14F69E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2024 19:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.096 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=krose.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7SG0phh-Fino for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2024 19:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x634.google.com (mail-ej1-x634.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::634]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0D4DC14F6A4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2024 19:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x634.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a59b58fe083so769183166b.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2024 19:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=krose.org; s=google; t=1716429807; x=1717034607; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=axmiG0eEfhJE0FTM/FdzFaQXj5dxgnbGIibdciiy28g=; b=krpdMXD6/iwtuqV44InJ9JT+6621gC428qE1NUiJ5Mr5ZD4fEExo07N7hA2uVzKd1L BiBjBv6S47TJUddLfKGDVwyfe5BVxpkeoxf8nAk9UbbRyli+gQb4XV/d+pX/KReyYKMM JO2Pu68OB1BAQ0/xa91s/jcZP91DYO/I3VLSw=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1716429807; x=1717034607; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=axmiG0eEfhJE0FTM/FdzFaQXj5dxgnbGIibdciiy28g=; b=X1KzjA7juOWt5TLBhya3tKzxqVaEFLA1Nl4HXE6druc1h+2qhUk9g0uE+diuh4UbBM Xrk1txIQZpzjKLM4vEX815unwcu+6fqzyl2qHBOQVmtf9ZvrGJ2KGUccGCMcdZVNttcU OrKYUAJHBy2LkgQy1QGj+gVK/lkaKz4ejt8An+yjkfDZya+4M2qy8DDBewxECoNHLnuq Iv+2mj55/dTOSoXZIBISaaYmqJ5fM7R8M9F6as7IkKrTYw6nJBQ0tBmN62yNr9RleC+k rcu6eiLYUnD5XQSL/NvmwLQzFqGZwvFFf690pjCxynkHCdppvmihulUqrCKFKTtgURat 1kHQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzqOSjqlJ5tqD4J9ZhSvcdJxGwUGmcBHFqaCBMgMxapN/yqi8PD OI8pdtFREV0SbNsgFC36EzleTglsRl1UBJrGrzuxgeYws+R/HlC5OCL6zFyVxCW22n+K6YYBXrY LREyurOhVDiGxF2ntCaS5jj5muCoK9pYyY2J8yg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFBNQfm3K7I/tjpSd7iWVlNzfElVD0jWs3tRInk+lkY5hACAIryIjxGD0aGjaGVBi1eK4whXVtuokNkGfAx2Bk=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:36ca:b0:a5a:6c0e:90f7 with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a622812fd0emr232268466b.42.1716429806154; Wed, 22 May 2024 19:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAN-Dau0J1uqpwnRXYpeSFGUTJ532MmpeGd4BLoAqqf8HzeFTjQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJU8_nW7Q3WphfgtgnK0E+88R1_nENCy9MBBYhG2G1bkPD9UeQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0Nc0VHMHdRg7MG6yf2X1S_SrYbA6YhKUzBz7XiLkR5cg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau0Nc0VHMHdRg7MG6yf2X1S_SrYbA6YhKUzBz7XiLkR5cg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 22:03:15 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJU8_nX4O9hs6R6sOw2+iEL-7urcadNBdBsZfP3-Dn_yUFovLA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Farmer <farmer=40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e0d50c061915744b"
Message-ID-Hash: 2QWUQH2D6LJE2W52BMTEA5AYQBAJEIFF
X-Message-ID-Hash: 2QWUQH2D6LJE2W52BMTEA5AYQBAJEIFF
X-MailFrom: krose@krose.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ipv6.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [IPv6]Re: Analysis of Ungleich ULA Registry
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group (6man)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ipv6-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ipv6-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ipv6-leave@ietf.org>

On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 9:54 PM David Farmer <farmer=
40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Nevertheless, if the data is to be believed, people are, in fact, using
> multiple /48s. I'm simply saying that is a fact, and it counters the
> argument that "no one needs more than a /48," at least in my opinion.
>
> You and others are completely entitled to your counter-opinion.
>

I'm not disputing that some might need more than a single /48. I'm
disputing the conclusion that ULA-C and central registration is required to
solve this problem, which feels like a complete non-sequitur. Just tell
them to generate a shorter prefix meeting their needs, alongside a warning
about what the future consequences might be.

Kyle

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status