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

"Kevin Kargel" <kkargel@polartel.com> Fri, 22 June 2007 13:23 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 1I1j72-0003Bz-7y; Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:23:44 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I1j70-0003Bu-WA for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:23:43 -0400
Received: from mail.polartel.com ([66.231.96.142]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I1j6z-0006ic-Gq for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:23:42 -0400
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:23:40 -0500
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A063141066707081@mail>
In-Reply-To: <5AA220CA-A02D-46F1-B9BF-55F90A467A7D@apple.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt
Thread-Index: Ace0WYQyAoOFeZmCQDiMQSyWeh++CAAdkCow
From: Kevin Kargel <kkargel@polartel.com>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081
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

So why are we expending so much effort getting them to switch to IPv6
earlier?  When IPv6 is the mainstream method of addressing they will get
swept along.  If a network admin wants to drag their feet and do things
the hard way they have a right to do that.  The rest of us don't need to
go out of our way to accommodate them.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 6:11 PM
> To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt
> 
> On Jun 21, 2007, at 15:26, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> >
> > Maybe I am missing the point, but there seems to be an implication 
> > that ULA-C necessarily implies IPv6 NAT; am I 
> misinterpreting? If not, 
> > then I don't quite understand why this implication is being 
> drawn. Can 
> > someone please explain?
> 
> I'm not going so far as to say the implication is there.  I'm 
> just have a very difficult time taking seriously the concern 
> about merge risks associated with renumbering due to the 
> birthday paradox in a 2^40 number space without something 
> more substantial to go on than a bald-faced assertion that 
> any small but non-zero probability of collision is 
> unacceptable.  The alternative explanation that makes the 
> most sense to me is that some influential organizations, 
> which are too small to warrant their own PI space, are 
> resisting migration to IPv6 unless they can use NAT with 
> private addresses, and they won't [or can't] explain why the 
> arguments in RFC 4864 and draft-ietf- 
> v6ops-scanning-implications-03.txt are failing to persuade them.
> 
> 
> --
> james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
> member of technical staff, communications engineering
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

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