Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Tue, 06 August 2013 02:44 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 22DE421F9377 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 19:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wj9T1J2qp9Cc for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 19:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x235.google.com (mail-ob0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A1E021F933B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 19:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f181.google.com with SMTP id dn14so7086633obc.40 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 19:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=LlsN9XRebAbg7qeyap9dAz+bJ5ekvyAeOuucDNyoVxM=; b=jK5157tgwGAWgQ0cPy7XVPQTyAItl6sdXWQaVwjP/QDVGAAvJc5KmR3N9swbS76rGq wg68Sp0ihEKFuHAhLq1FbpAy/WEqyWKuJcw5QkgwHpZ38ObhF/x4bhz2kDEbATWB0bjv jbadCbt8yaLBdzaY8+OBdbkLIweUjDBSYTZKWYMRDwIjDwoAdHcKCL1wBygB2u24z58u QT2cFSO6v5l7GFWtQNWnVEElwLHSwUUPcLg4mql/PJd+MG+8gKruckLa9NuwSDPqKQnK FgkSfCc9nMKHzSv5uebAg/pnWZoENbEWS3wHozYY8S8090kH42McYbTNeMjOisLsYLt9 65rw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=LlsN9XRebAbg7qeyap9dAz+bJ5ekvyAeOuucDNyoVxM=; b=iojUIJ9/rnrwyoIK+dEepaiYuAtCmv0tFef19OvYcL+QLg7u0xu3riLG6dnbTCaZaZ uqJsgGPAAuIM+5EpHnw/Od1gWQ1oM/auPNmmZkRxlsrBQTyfPHEdM82XW9SguWILtWI3 rFKtFMkOuUYchEKVL6dWowgqyHQqjUXQ4cl0NiaNvxNjgojI7rhbFbvjrLBd0qmoewIF pwm5aLEvtQ2KmhlQvpKW+Z2sYP3aPZ8vdlwTo2V+LVHk4vyAoxacG7AYUCby0GQwOywb 1+oU32gZcFXDiKhUu4tmfUM8xgijkeN0mTyXv69avnXgMyddfxuMkOm/3ZefHrXwCpb5 GNAA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnUlj0463+firNvXCvli8+afhvKNm28aqVViXFHWwjJsk83SWcjaXuIagFTMLEKfNzxkuTiFXfzxKV3EZPXVUDHIw0rCLFy/ti15ysnLh3GOB0ofzVsfnBZ2maK3wF0wWDfLGgEo+xJAa4N0XbTWSGrFAAKENZz1R1wgR/J3mKZXGhNnNUsrSnoVW++W25HwIB4DVZr
X-Received: by 10.50.9.102 with SMTP id y6mr65212iga.17.1375757092342; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 19:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.228.144 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 19:44:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CE25D82D.52838%victor@jvknet.com>
References: <CAKD1Yr0sztQbUr=KZ5G9Q8Cauzo6cd+mDb-TWDVckz_tT-iBuw@mail.gmail.com> <CE25D82D.52838%victor@jvknet.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 11:44:31 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr336sF_Z7BNf4qHHFW7GH2zzMgFxmgRyPADDMpqD=3nWg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c31b66c979c204e33e6870
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 06 Aug 2013 02:44:54 -0000

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com> wrote:

> For clarity, if the text remaining mentioned ULAs, but text removed
> connecting it to NPT or NAT, would that meet your objections?
>

If this draft describes the use of ULAs only in conjunction with global
addresses, and states that they cannot be used by themselves, noting that
this is different from IPv4, where a host can have only private addresses
and function properly, then that's likely to be non-controversial, because
it just repeating what's written in RFC 4193. Mentioning a use case where a
host only has ULAs, or suggesting the use of ULA+NPTv6, is likely going to
be controversial.

 We then point to drafts (draft-liu-v6ops-running-multiple-prefixes)
>
and (draft-liu-v6ops-running-multiple-prefixes)
>

I take it you mean "draft-liu-v6ops-running-multiple-prefixes" and
"draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations"?