Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider operational input]]
Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> Wed, 27 April 2022 15:14 UTC
Return-Path: <furry13@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FECFC237D14; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DFxu1KL9HMfJ; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62d.google.com (mail-ej1-x62d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2874DC23BEA0; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62d.google.com with SMTP id i19so4008918eja.11; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=OgTy9rXjzInEzUg6yL70As7cFS6a/mIOsuv+1sMBFic=; b=FhyZ5Xk5puO/awWJv2sXitlCOx+VtSfTDKtI3TFJJTpC03cQ1Ing33KfuekDXzjRbQ A6e0KD+NJiaBclcyZzYYege0ArJm/ntnCfOXjujDMtgHzR7JRh6bPt24pVX3OITuk9jS uZpgRzo6MMISltYmIsW2SZefJssTJc0+sQSbVYuIfDMrXqJYzqrgA+P3EbPGGlP5ROun 3yMmSbUjGg2MIMy6CwVt+8DotHq/W2d5IgKgGjEPlNvwaw6qR8Rv8K6p2KxadhB2xz9B M+/zVAdgRenVP0kYUUYmmXqR+TSmGckLPPxsN8lydbJS4e9RTBYUEKmFTKStqbZnfDfi yWYw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OgTy9rXjzInEzUg6yL70As7cFS6a/mIOsuv+1sMBFic=; b=SKU6R1BqRHs0Y6afnPEdsRvPSqaWbs4OPefAo3rQoQztLeiWQlI40/zxW9pxhXbUN6 Naj+RMBs2v3r6DpSbJOX2NLaw354Q1pIF3Wt5jc4XohgCIdxkksPfYCXzw1WnT+v+AYb m3hTFzfB1G8bqMfpK7XjQimY3MXxJ1S9oM7wTGDDBkim6uS4+e3fH4SP0hbrr1K23C+Y eM28MrrQZWXAAyX9sLt1Iz1mFiLj11z/Fq0O7D38wnPyh/AW22XxxCHFf+uNLh3PXwGU 5PH22bVCJaY0Cwf+4sR1JUmLy9vVCHwnOPn5OW+R39S2hyObRdWLXtwZQdzgciGEq7kz 1zLg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532PhTv4ANpInxp3DBOCXk1PX0EkFcVjSXWPLOJDV2qe0Al7e3w5 miK3l30BsIi0OryRurokXU7sabmZbs8aXrXcX84=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxWW4pG/3hBswjvTQivnkL9hxg976z4SSHfpEmEBSkbs9yowTLyNcysHvw7vqImkX+esk4BqhLpltKnSTF2F4A=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:66d5:b0:6e0:5ba8:8e0f with SMTP id k21-20020a17090666d500b006e05ba88e0fmr26119566ejp.581.1651072363194; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:12:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM5+tA8WvjvWirxqE6kQ9LQAG0NcpWyCLGVooB=G7gZ9ETb2zQ@mail.gmail.com> <20220424172743.GA218999@fg-networking.de> <CAKD1Yr1v0Tkh+pWD-ts=PL3gZf7Qj6OHW6Cuvj8iGcSSMibjew@mail.gmail.com> <0afe25f5-52b7-a438-0696-cf8b0a83c2dc@gmail.com> <BN8PR07MB70760D9693580F5BDCB61DD995F89@BN8PR07MB7076.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAKD1Yr3Z9wGQ+uiA2WcW00MrOiLyHs+bSoFjHVtrixCi2qp4DA@mail.gmail.com> <BN8PR07MB7076A6456CAB48EF428D6E8695F89@BN8PR07MB7076.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <65d0d9ac-77fc-c200-09e3-0c3949ca1541@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau2FS99ewfgH8xk-jSJFCnO92CJV9ZC98DUE2UDR7V1Eww@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau2FS99ewfgH8xk-jSJFCnO92CJV9ZC98DUE2UDR7V1Eww@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 17:12:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFU7BAQJGwXnoaLC5cQqnvow4HAGsmfvfbGgiG8jspHgMExQ1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Farmer <farmer=40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man list <ipv6@ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <elemon@apple.com>, Erik Auerswald <auerswald@fg-networking.de>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="000000000000b5321f05dda43d9f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/524CMIO5_YifsM7ygxg2OJ3kO3A>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider operational input]]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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, 27 Apr 2022 15:14:32 -0000
AFAIK PCR DSS 4.0 has been updated. 1.4.5 currently says: "Purpose Restricting the disclosure of internal, private, and local IP addresses is useful to prevent a hacker from obtaining knowledge of these IP addresses and using that information to access the network. Good Practice Methods used to meet the intent of this requirement may vary, depending on the specific networking technology being used. For example, the controls used to meet this requirement may be different for IPv4 networks than for IPv6 networks. Examples Methods to obscure IP addressing may include, but are not limited to: • IPv4 Network Address Translation (NAT). • Placing system components behind proxy servers/NSCs. • Removal or filtering of route advertisements for internal networks that use registered addressing. • Internal use of RFC 1918 (IPv4) or use IPv6 privacy extension (RFC 4941) when initiating outgoing sessions to the internet." On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 1:07 AM David Farmer <farmer= 40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > You want to look at PCI DSS 3.2 requirement 1.3.7. > [image: image.png] > > Compensating controls is an option, but auditors have to sign off on them, > and the whole process is about minimizing exceptions and getting a clean > audit. IT isn't in charge of this, finance people are, it's not technical, > it's all about the money, and numbers with 7 or 8 significant digits or > more. > > I've been on that the merry-go-round several times, I believe in IPv6 E2E, > but if anyone asks me just do NPTv6 or NAT66, whatever the auditor wants > you to do. > > Have fun on the merry-go-round, I'll pass. > > Thanks > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 5:32 PM Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Kevin, >> >> > Auditing frameworks and auditors are just not ready for IPv6 and >> without migration strategies like NAT, they'll have no reason to be because >> IPv4 will continue to dominate. >> >> You're describing a vicious circle, and the question is how can we break >> it? >> >> Advocating NPTv6 might achieve that, but many of us dislike that strategy. >> >> Can you explain what are the technical requirements in PCI-DSS land that >> have been interpreted as requiring NAT44? Is it time for RFC4864bis, >> because this is exactly what we were aiming at with that RFC? >> >> Regards >> Brian Carpenter >> >> On 25-Apr-22 17:34, Kevin Myers wrote: >> > This misses the problem entirely though. >> > >> > It's not a choice to reconsider, these are regulatory requirements. The >> fact that a handful of enterprises have deployed IPv6 doesn't move the >> needle on compliance for the vast majority of them. >> > >> > No retail enterprise is going to choose IPv6 without NAT internally if >> it means not being permitted to use credit cards because of a failed >> PCI-DSS audit. >> > >> > Auditing frameworks and auditors are just not ready for IPv6 and >> without migration strategies like NAT, they'll have no reason to be because >> IPv4 will continue to dominate. >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > *From:* Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> >> > *Sent:* Sunday, April 24, 2022, 11:27 PM >> > *To:* Kevin Myers <kevin.myers@iparchitechs.com> >> > *Cc:* Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; Erik Auerswald < >> auerswald@fg-networking.de>; Ted Lemon <elemon@apple.com>; v6ops list < >> v6ops@ietf.org>; 6man list <ipv6@ietf.org> >> > *Subject:* Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider operational >> input] >> > >> > There are several fortune 500 companies that have publicly stated that >> they have deployed IPv6 with global addressing, so that's definitely >> possible. >> > >> > As for "is it better to deploy IPv6 with NAT66 or not to deploy at >> all", I would guess it depends who you ask. My personal answer would be no. >> It's possible that when faced with app and OS incompatibilities, those >> enterprises might reconsider. Or they might pick the same technical >> solutions as the enterprises that have already deployed with global >> addresses. >> > >> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 12:42 PM Kevin Myers < >> kevin.myers@iparchitechs.com <mailto:kevin.myers@iparchitechs.com>> >> wrote: >> > >> > IPv6 NAT is already being deployed in large enterprises for the few >> that want to tackle IPv6. Vendor implementations exist, so that ship has >> sailed regardless of where the IETF lands. >> > >> > Most of the Fortune 500 fall under regulatory compliance of one >> body or another (PCI-DSS, FIPS, HIPAA, etc) and none of them are setup well >> for an IPv6 no-NAT world. Most of the discussion I see around enterprise >> adoption on the IETF lists misses this point. It matters very little >> whether NAT is a "good" or "bad" practice when it comes to selecting an >> operational model. Enterprises choose operational models that will pass >> audits >> and the overwhelming majority rely heavily on NAT. We can make the >> argument that compliance bodies and auditors should update their guidance >> and standards and they absolutely should, but it will probably take close >> to a decade to change the regulatory compliance auditing landscape to the >> point that IPv6 without NAT is commonplace. >> > >> > If auditors won't sign off on end to end GUA addressing, then NAT >> is going to remain. >> > >> > Enterprises are more than willing to punt IPv6 for another decade >> and will likely have no issues in doing so given how little IPv4 space most >> of them need compared to service providers. Even when IPv6 becomes the >> predominant transport type for an Internet handoff everywhere, it will >> still just live in the underlay while IPv4 remains the predominant choice >> in the overlay, in apps, and internally in the DC for enterprises. >> > >> > At what point does it become more important to have IPv6 >> implemented, than to have it "perfectly" implemented? >> > >> > Kevin Myers >> > Sr. Network Architect >> > IP ArchiTechs >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org>> >> On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter >> > Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 9:48 PM >> > To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto: >> 40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>>; Erik Auerswald <auerswald@fg-networking.de >> <mailto:auerswald@fg-networking.de>>; Ted Lemon <elemon@apple.com >> <mailto:elemon@apple.com>> >> > Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>>; 6man list >> <ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>> >> > Subject: Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider >> operational input] >> > >> > On 25-Apr-22 12:16, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: >> > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:28 AM Erik Auerswald < >> auerswald@fg-networking.de <mailto:auerswald@fg-networking.de> <mailto: >> auerswald@fg-networking.de <mailto:auerswald@fg-networking.de>>> wrote: >> > > >> > > "Since ULAs are defined to have a /48 site prefix, an >> implementation >> > > might choose to add such a row automatically on a machine >> with >> > > a ULA." >> > > >> > > The result is that only the local ULA prefix, >> i.e., exactly the >> > > local IPv6 addresses, are preferred over IPv4 >> (and IPv6 GUA). >> > > This should be exactly what is needed to use ULA addresses >> inside >> > > an organization, or for a lab. >> > > [...] >> > > Implementing the non-normative suggestion from Section 10.6 >> of RFC >> > > 6724 would in all likelihood result in making >> ULA usable for local >> > > tests and even first steps in deploying IPv6. ULA addresses >> would >> > > only be used locally. Existing IPv4 based Internet access >> would not >> > > be impaired by adding IPv6 ULA. >> > > >> > > >> > > That does seem like it might make ULA more useful, yes. >> > > >> > > Additionally, maybe we could clarify that the longest-prefix >> match rule >> > does not apply to ULAs outside the same /48? I think that would fix >> the issue observed by +Ted Lemon <mailto:elemon@apple.com <mailto: >> elemon@apple.com>> in home networks: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/materials/slides-113-6man-source-address-selection-for-foreign-ulas-00 >> < >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/materials/slides-113-6man-source-address-selection-for-foreign-ulas-00> >> < >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/materials/slides-113-6man-source-address-selection-for-foreign-ulas-00 >> < >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/materials/slides-113-6man-source-address-selection-for-foreign-ulas-00>> >> . >> > >> > When two networks each with its own ULA prefix are intentionally >> merged, longest match would be the right thing, wouldn't it? (Assuming that >> the split DNSs are also merged, and of course internal routing.) In that >> case there is no "foreign" ULA prefix. >> > >> > > In order to keep IPv6 deployment similar to IPv4, IPv6 NAT >> could be >> > > considered. To make this work as intended, the address >> selection >> > > policy table could be adjusted to contain the >> local ULA prefix >> > > with precedence greater or equal to GUA and the same label >> as GUA. >> > > >> > > >> > > This seems like it would encourage the use of IPv6 NAT. I think >> there is reasonably strong consensus within the IETF that that is not the >> right way to go, because it pushes problems on to application developers. >> This adds costs for NAT traversal software development and maintenance, >> and requires devices to implement NAT keepalives, increasing battery usage. >> > >> > That may be the IETF's consensus, but there is a very large >> fraction of the enterprise network operations community that strongly >> disagrees, >> and in fact regards this as a red line issue. It isn't even clear that >> they'd accept NPTv6 as an alternative to NAPT66. If this is indeed the only >> way to get IPv6 inside enterprises, what is the right thing for the IETF >> to do? >> > >> > Brian >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > v6ops mailing list >> > v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops < >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops> >> > >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> v6ops mailing list >> v6ops@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >> > > > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 > =============================================== > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
- [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Fred Baker
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Fred Baker
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Fred Baker
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Bob Hinden
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Bjoern A. Zeeb
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Toerless Eckert
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Xipengxiao
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Toerless Eckert
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Philip Homburg
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Toerless Eckert
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Ackermann, Michael
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Simon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Chongfeng Xie
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Gyan Mishra
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Joe Maimon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Gyan Mishra
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input hsyu
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Scott Morizot
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Joe Maimon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Mark Andrews
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Mark Andrews
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Mark Andrews
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Daniel Woititz
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Owen DeLong
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Paolo Volpato
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Ackermann, Michael
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Philip Homburg
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Philipp S. Tiesel
- [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider oper… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Mark Andrews
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Ackermann, Michael
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Paolo Volpato
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Bob Hinden
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Ackermann, Michael
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Paolo Volpato
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Ackermann, Michael
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Ackermann, Michael
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Fred Baker
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Nalini J Elkins
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Xipengxiao
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input E. Marie Brierley
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Ackermann, Michael
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Ackermann, Michael
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input E. Marie Brierley
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input E. Marie Brierley
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Chongfeng Xie
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Brian Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Philipp S. Tiesel
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Ackermann, Michael
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Joe Maimon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Joe Maimon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Fred Baker
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Ackermann, Michael
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Simon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Joe Maimon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Joe Maimon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Joe Maimon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Joe Maimon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Mark Andrews
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Joe Maimon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Simon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Joe Maimon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input otroan
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Fred Baker
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Joe Maimon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Simon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Joe Maimon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Simon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Ackermann, Michael
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Joe Maimon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Simon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Xipengxiao
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input David Conrad
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input David Conrad
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Joe Maimon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Simon
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Greg Skinner
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Chris Cummings
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input daveb
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Erik Auerswald
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Kevin Myers
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Kevin Myers
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Erik Auerswald
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Erik Auerswald
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Brian Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Erik Auerswald
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Erik Auerswald
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Erik Auerswald
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … otroan
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Philip Homburg
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Philip Homburg
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Erik Auerswald
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Erik Auerswald
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … otroan
- [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoughts … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… David Farmer
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Brian Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… David Farmer
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… George Michaelson
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Jen Linkova
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Michael Richardson
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Michael Richardson
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Kevin Myers
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Kevin Myers
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Michael Richardson
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Kevin Myers
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Erik Auerswald
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Simon
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Simon
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Kevin Myers
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Jen Linkova
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Kevin Myers
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Xipengxiao
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Joe Maimon
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Havard Eidnes
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… David Farmer
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Ed Horley
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Michael Sweet
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Kevin Myers
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Joe Maimon
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… David Farmer
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Jen Linkova
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… David Farmer
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Philip Homburg
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… David Farmer
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Ed Horley
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Ackermann, Michael
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Kevin Myers
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Michael Richardson
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Michael Richardson
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Philip Homburg
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Michael Richardson
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Kevin Myers
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Fred Baker
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Ed Horley
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… David Farmer
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Erik Auerswald
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Fred Baker
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Ed Horley
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Mark Andrews
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Michael Richardson
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Fred Baker
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Michael Richardson
- Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Georgi Stoev
- Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoug… Brian E Carpenter