IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations-02.txt

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 20 February 2014 01:33 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 5EC7D1A060C for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:33:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] 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 Ak1HKjs4BfA5 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:33:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F30591A0423 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:33:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2FD21B826F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:33:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2C39190052; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:33:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:33:01 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr2fyZ9FezX5dh=P-PiruiOqKBKO9f5hroD-CHDJS+ZMQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:32:59 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <9878D4FB-9681-4EFC-A6EF-314F9DCB36DE@nominum.com>
References: <20140214091302.13219.20624.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <m21tz6javn.wl%randy@psg.com> <1442fd6c81e.5859224653900445752.5189762259388794287@internetdraft.org> <52FEBE28.1010006@gmail.com> <8E2A8B56-6F05-4F09-BE7E-651B9CA42458@delong.com> <5300CE32.1050808@gmail.com> <BD473E46-E382-44E6-B474-A56D074318FA@delong.com> <530104B3.3070205@gmail.com> <53010E70.5000401@gmail.com> <20140217110013.GA31822@mushkin> <62FF9B8A-2F21-4FDD-B1D2-82B8C02A21B3@delong.com> <37638184-17C6-4C8B-86B1-C596A5A5504A@nominum.com> <530242C3.4070108@bogus.com> <E91E49CA-7BA6-4DA3-B4F3-46BB0F25F8F1@delong.com> <5303CD3E.1010907@gmail.com> <m2a9dnr4vk.wl%randy@psg.com> <5304BAAF.60608@gmail.com> <53052B43.2070904@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2fyZ9FezX5dh=P-PiruiOqKBKO9f5hroD-CHDJS+ZMQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/5uwnVCzwTEcvQOg5jfMgc7llHm8
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations-02.txt
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: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 01:33:06 -0000

On Feb 19, 2014, at 8:17 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
> You assume that people will actually follow the rules instead of saying "let's just do this like IPv4, and use NAT at the border".

If they are having a collision between ULAs because they used a bad algorithm for choosing their prefix, and if this is in any sense an inconvenience for them, then they have already deployed IPv6 in a fairly widespread fashion, and they aren't just going to back it out and go to IPv4.   Renumbering would be no more work.

I agree that a NAT is another likely outcome, but come on, Lorenzo.   How realistic is this scenario?   The RFC1918 collision/merger problem is well enough known that I've heard of it, and I don't do corporate numbering.   Of course this could happen, but if it does it will happen infrequently, and people will get fired over it, and it will ultimately stop happening.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email