IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt

Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com> Thu, 12 July 2007 14:35 UTC

Return-path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I8zl8-0006Mk-6Y; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:35:10 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I8zl6-0006LC-18 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:35:08 -0400
Received: from sa.vix.com ([2001:4f8:3:bb::1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I8zl4-0004Ne-P1 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:35:08 -0400
Received: from sa.vix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sa.vix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A87C11425 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:35:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vixie@sa.vix.com)
From: Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:05:13 +0200." <4695E0B9.2060300@gmail.com>
References: <200706251556.l5PFu6Qa057410@mail.reprise.com><078201c7bdb0$503f2dc0$543816ac@atlanta.polycom.com><94065E4E-7A57-46AC-8A13-D7591C26EA13@apple.com><Pine.LNX.4.64.0707101337220.9923@chandra.student.uit.no><FEB5791F-8495-4905-8D6C-D454F46FD976@apple.com><22851.1184090216@sa.vix.com><B29043A9-6165-47FB-B83A-0A5272A0C451@apple.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707111133400.9923@chandra.student.uit.no> <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B0AA2CAA@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net> <28681.1184163817@sa.vix.com> <072c01c7c3dd$122b6110$36822330$@net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707112026200.9923@chandra.student.uit.no> <4695350B.7090201@internap.com> <4695E0B9.2060300@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.0.2; nmh 1.0.4; GNU Emacs 21.3.1
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:35:04 +0000
Message-ID: <80775.1184250904@sa.vix.com>
X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org

> >> which again give us some sort of aggregation... is this something we
> >> want? (althought it would fit us, where I work, perfectly since we would
> >> get almost all the space we need quite easy:-)

> > I would agree with Tony that aggregation of ULA-G space should be allowed.
> > I know there are many others who disagree, but IMO mutually assured
> > destruction isn't called for here.  As long as we have an expectation that
> > routes will be filtered, and have the ability to easily do so, I don't
> > think it matters whether we have lots of non-aggregated routes or fewer
> > aggregated ones...

> I'd also add a heretical comment: if they agggregate, it doesn't *matter* if
> they leak. In fact, they *will* leak up to the point where they hit a
> shorter filter. That's physics.

ok, intentional unaggregatability is out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email