Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On 11/3/15 00:00 , Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Liubing (Leo) <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     [Bing] I basically agree with this claim. But that is actually why
>     we changed the document’s purpose from recommendations to
>     considerations, that it only discusses pros and cons of those
>     possible scenarios, and NOT make any formal recommendation.
>
>
>  From the discussion of the deployment considerations draft in the v6ops
> session yesterday, several WG members (I remember at least James
> Woodyatt, Dave Thaler, Igor Gashinsky, and myself) believed that it is
> not enough to list these deployment models with their pros and cons.
> Instead, these deployment models should be listed separately as
> "deployment models that are considered harmful".

To clarify, are you saying Connected Networks with ULA-Only (NPTv6 & 
ALP) section 4.2.1 deployment models are harmful?

I agree with this, with the caveat we have to acknowledge these exist in 
order to call them harmful.  I've heard in the past that some what them 
removed completely.  I prefer to keep them and call them harmful.

Or are you saying all ULA deployment models are harmful?  If you are 
saying this I need to better understand what you mean and way you think 
this.

Thanks.

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: [e-mail]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================