IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Wed, 04 November 2015 12:26 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AB2C1B2E42 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 04:26:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 p2boX5JjuajJ for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 04:26:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D95A81B2E3F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 04:26:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5227; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1446639988; x=1447849588; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=i5KuWhuo8UFxudCJsN23+cfvTsHxmon9RsniP4QCrl8=; b=Gf+d22JhTC4302E5LteszJ+VQDyNwCg95DtjqWkvki7r8FjbeG0TCXUT 35COvRuvuQF0WyrxyLHsnfEOX319PdhIjU6iVP8cwwRv0mBwu3OECwaOH QRwkd9dIUXmlq7gz1uACr1+5eikI/LX9OtPfnlsyuczAgJ1eY7x08n2Lt M=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 833
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DxAgAy+DlW/5tdJa1egzuBQga9Pg6BXYYTAoFAOBQBAQEBAQEBgQqENQEBAQMBeQULAgEIBA4GJwchERQDDgIEDgUOiAsDCgi9CQ2ELgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQ8JiGWCboJThVGBFAWWSAGCUYFhhnyBdIFakxWDYINxAR8BQ4QEcoQtgQcBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,243,1444694400"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="204931286"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Nov 2015 12:26:28 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tA4CQRxn032570 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:26:28 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 07:26:26 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 07:26:26 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?
Thread-Index: AQHRFvwGW+Bklb5Loku+uw8b9sz4Dw==
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 12:26:26 +0000
Message-ID: <BCE63ABB-C13E-4083-91F9-C4736328E6ED@cisco.com>
References: <D25D5920.C914E%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <563733AF.4010509@gmail.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45C231921A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <5637D854.2090203@bogus.com> <5637E84B.5090001@gmail.com> <5637EB69.1080608@umn.edu> <03358859-8078-489E-835D-3B4D324381BE@delong.com> <20151103204237.GJ70452@Space.Net> <CAO42Z2xen4gCfkJphZYKfjff5ZsEn_jOf5V16OtYOYNw2VKVAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3Qn48eQ1Q4VovCsr_S2+RADRZKzi9qBDoh8G2w6Be+=g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3Qn48eQ1Q4VovCsr_S2+RADRZKzi9qBDoh8G2w6Be+=g@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.70.233.10]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_08B433C6-107F-45B1-8DAD-3EA0530718E6"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/1NmzDM7ZYlJnpouoznwlLxwi7YE>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 12:26:30 -0000

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 10:18 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com <mailto:markzzzsmith@gmail.com>> wrote:
> It'll also discourage IPv6 adoption if they go away.
> 
> If people have to pay for IPv6 address space just to use IPv6 they'll either steal public IPv6 space to use instead, or stick with IPv4 and RFC1918s.
> 
> I don't think that's a good argument. I think it's more important to preserve the architecture and end-to-end than to rush "IPv6" adoption by deploying it the wrong way. If there are reasons we can't use global addresses everywhere (e.g., the inability to multihome), then we need to fix those, and I'd rather we accept a slightly lower adoption rate as the price of doing it right.
> 
> IPv6 adoption seems to be growing just fine at the moment. If NAT is what you want, use IPv4.

So, in your mind, the only usage of ULA is NAT. I actually think there are other uses, such as for addressing cable modems and the like that don't go through a NAT. Assume we agree that NAT is evil. Is there a reason uses in which an address is excluded from inter-network usage is therefore bad?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email