Re: [mif] question regarding PvD properties and what it applies to

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 04 April 2016 02:04 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B86812D103 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 19:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 K3N6pd_jXHRV for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 19:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A2B312D0A7 for <mif@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 19:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6ACC740041; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 02:04:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([169.254.4.19]) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.235.66]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Sun, 3 Apr 2016 19:04:02 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, "mif@ietf.org" <mif@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mif] question regarding PvD properties and what it applies to
Thread-Index: AQHRjbCyA5A6QMjzMkWacWnzEDLBR595EQUy
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 02:04:01 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A4389E@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1604031540340.31096@uplift.swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1604031540340.31096@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [31.133.146.182]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/od3ulIW3Styj8qsxDmU0XhKtMn8>
Subject: Re: [mif] question regarding PvD properties and what it applies to
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mif/>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 02:04:04 -0000

Ideally all intra-homenet traffic uses a ULA, so that problem doesn't come up.