IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Extending a /64

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Fri, 20 November 2020 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.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 16B0F3A0E58 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 08:26:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 skyhHjJ6JG4b for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 08:26:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [46.182.8.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3F2F3A0E3D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 08:26:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Envelope-To: ipv6@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 0AKGQc8U060937 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Nov 2020 16:26:38 GMT (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.local
Subject: Re: Extending a /64
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Cc: Tony Whyman <tony.whyman@mccallumwhyman.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <202011151920.0AFJKN9U003337@mail2.mwassocs.co.uk> <3d26bffe-b6c9-4ed7-6135-a515f9902fd7@gmail.com> <m1keOTi-0000EGC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAO42Z2wZkXryhw1u5WAFdtCvXHyyz1zeM22FP_gRxjurjsG-Jw@mail.gmail.com> <5f505585-1328-d942-2ec2-a2d96b7b4779@foobar.org> <CAO42Z2yk5pEKGFEYk3MDDDybVDZt6GiE1Pw932n4gLaqSxGH7A@mail.gmail.com> <23487.1605731956@localhost> <CAO42Z2yesLcdRw0HrNBsUAm-x=T9OneCjPMLmq8oZ4_ZH99Tsw@mail.gmail.com> <8f6bab4b-4171-66ba-cff4-742adc10ceea@foobar.org> <01cd5a82-be72-54b8-0171-3720f25cae0d@mccallumwhyman.com> <CAO42Z2xYAut_dfQtGrwkm7VWw9NPhsa5xaE9NqjCaK9L8RoMQA@mail.gmail.com> <7c500d2b-bc44-d00e-9cc2-96046c6ec5d6@foobar.org> <CAO42Z2wgWeHDpShz3zn4WH4aRvNHoGjntENMpiy9JqTAJQe-gg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <63d17227-fe9c-43cf-d6a8-db78e093239a@foobar.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 16:26:37 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.36
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2wgWeHDpShz3zn4WH4aRvNHoGjntENMpiy9JqTAJQe-gg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/fDF28m5mESn5omKvtr-On6WKoNo>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 16:26:56 -0000

Mark Smith wrote on 20/11/2020 02:49:
> ULAs are specifically designed to allow interconnecting to other ULA 
> networks without resorting to renumbering or IPv6 NAT.

Mark,

yep, we know what ULAs are.  What makes them unsuitable is their 
specification as address ranges "with high probability of uniqueness".

Earlier in the thread you expressed concerns about risk management, 
including images of planes falling out of the sky and invocation of 
insurance risk and regulatory involvement.  If risk is a concern here, 
then addressing models with a "high probability of uniqueness" are not 
going to be viable, because this risk can be eliminated with a low 
outlay by using registered address space.

Can we now park this aspect of the discussion?

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email