IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Tue, 27 May 2014 03:23 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 96B741A0347 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 4aFZ-TDWXuGQ for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [149.20.64.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DB4D1A01C8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6920C3493AF; Tue, 27 May 2014 03:23:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0A9B160055; Tue, 27 May 2014 03:28:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c211-30-183-50.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.183.50]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C2925160052; Tue, 27 May 2014 03:28:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C88116B357F; Tue, 27 May 2014 13:23:48 +1000 (EST)
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6B9A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m261ks7xww.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840070.90801@gmail.com> <m2y4xn7wep.wl%randy@psg.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 27 May 2014 12:06:22 +0900." <m2y4xn7wep.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 13:23:48 +1000
Message-Id: <20140527032348.4C88116B357F@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/2DdWoKqZsQcj42SszmaSAwoqz5o
Cc: v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 27 May 2014 03:23:51 -0000

In message <m2y4xn7wep.wl%randy@psg.com>, Randy Bush writes:
> >> we long ago concluded that today's isolated network will most likely
> >> be connected some day.
> > 
> > Exactly why I said "If it's forever isolated, a ULA would
> > be appropriate (and fail-safe if it does, in reality, get
> > connected to an ISP)."
> > 
> > In fact, I should have said: If it's forever isolated, a ULA would
> > be appropriate (and fail-safe if it does, in reality, get
> > connected to an ISP or another "isolated" network).
> 
> not really.  my point is that it has been proven to be unsafe to assume
> that any network will be forever isolated.
> 
> randy

You are both saying that networks that are notionally isolated tend to
get connected.  There is no "assumsion that networks will remain isolated
forever". 

> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email