Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider operational input]
Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Mon, 25 April 2022 06:01 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 C60D93A2207 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Apr 2022 23:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.606
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.606 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 sVhPFLHK2-mI for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Apr 2022 23:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe32.google.com (mail-vs1-xe32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76CE53A2208 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Apr 2022 23:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe32.google.com with SMTP id t85so3714047vst.4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Apr 2022 23:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Dv+WG/MKBCZbIsyBp3qUfeYAqTQ/0r2DA0sjPYPmIAQ=; b=aI8Y4zgJYEyqj+AOrQe+fNurYwTU1nZJnVyfDeyZexMw6jkbrxLQolDuJQZlkFtiEJ 4O2MX1xcYEmrHWP1momU5p1LEkmgX5H4+R8DZtLHK6XBbderXTUMmHxVD5GzE+CTG8tv ZYDP+yc2r+p7CEKneTE16b9e8LcpVg+vxw+YAtPSLWfuwdFFiNPPT/X1KRiXDhxW9hVN rgyBS7EB6mqCwc4rHvQW6fuvNS4IpBQb306oV7A1rCJxRqGZ3l3K2lpL6Rd0Ekaslj6Q QgIAcmBTqUo04+ukfjqMKhf1bFh3LCSoPP1bbwPUUiehIuC1W11X4XXeD4RZEYQcfrLn DsqQ==
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=Dv+WG/MKBCZbIsyBp3qUfeYAqTQ/0r2DA0sjPYPmIAQ=; b=wh4cbyuqiLdTuq1B8wrEdEjrBB3g9ha1x2olmG9BZZdhZ7F2NSK3TPec8qeafg2h04 e0EYu3PrRHrfYEABv3ipLnqRVG5i6eTLqExJp0Zi9OmxL9U8UYR8uxHFKCEBZ3WtOtcp ZdJIPrVEuuxOqJUIuX/IasyV3zmPLKXhriX2mqtiRTyRKFf2HBDkW8YF+5zJtt+E3hRz pu3+V4RgihhLzALXHIdD9cV/MahAE8Cl13lYMn4M5G7m2wn6xY2f/ee5/10L7EoIhFMd 1XKJWGKdsebm6GNJ8NckTCzLyTz8r16uwoboNPgTLqJtX4OVw7elDN9V0evNUfdJBE/8 rVlg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531yQbUjRghT1hRczTvC0vuc4q/ckkoO+PcnVBUviekfCBIerq3t 9iCLN3HN/dOQ+j4S/HCNv/wR+MJPvGEeSv2yIv8/zg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz+NqQf/y+wJ5Yw9YVG564LtjKyjxN3ai0GciBrj1hSNWiooGXgprfD90NHZQG0oB5TiOHvadHgOLe4s49rUQo=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:d014:0:b0:32a:4de6:aa23 with SMTP id r20-20020a67d014000000b0032a4de6aa23mr4468668vsi.22.1650866489189; Sun, 24 Apr 2022 23:01:29 -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>
In-Reply-To: <BN8PR07MB7076A6456CAB48EF428D6E8695F89@BN8PR07MB7076.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 15:01:17 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr1sh=0Y=DyBiPsPEmR=qvWD8eL_61qy0KBprcgeDaOQ-Q@mail.gmail.com>
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>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a9482805dd744e97"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/82bZdA1HA9UQfyRL2dNxl48eFPk>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider operational input]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 06:01:36 -0000
Right. Some things take time. But it's definitely possible to leave some parts of the network IPv4-only until the auditing frameworks catch up. The companies I mention absolutely do take credit cards, so it definitely seems to be possible to roll out end-to-end IPv6 to (at least parts of) the network without IPv6 NAT. Whether companies will choose not to implement IPv6 anywhere if they can't do it everywhere I don't know. Like for all IPv6 deployments, it will probably depend on the company and on their business needs. Personally I don't think the IETF should be in the business of making IPv6 easier to deploy in enterprises if it means making it more difficult for application developers. The history of IPv6 deployment generally suggests that the primary reason organizations in any field have not deployed IPv6 is not feature parity, but lack of business need. You can't address a lack of business need by fixing feature parity. Conversely, when a business need has appeared, organizations have seemed to be able to deploy IPv6 even in the presence of feature gaps. So making IPv6 NAT more deployable won't result in much more IPv6 deployment. But it will result in more costs for application developers who will need to write to the minimum common denominator., On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:34 PM Kevin Myers <kevin.myers@iparchitechs.com> 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> > 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> On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter >> Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 9:48 PM >> To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; Erik >> Auerswald <auerswald@fg-networking.de>; Ted Lemon <elemon@apple.com> >> Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>; 6man list <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>> 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> 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> >> . >> >> 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 >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >> > >
- [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