IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Tue, 27 May 2014 22:22 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 9814D1A07C8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 15:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -115.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-115.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 g9uCZOXdWNmn for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 15:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 023831A07A2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 15:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1614; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1401229341; x=1402438941; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=DYKusDJEB9tHDZspgQR5S/f1sfLCmjyFV4gau76HI+0=; b=E3IOpPmYnF1eBdXFNUBaJ0V35aDK3VbgrMKicetNi2jVlu61u56JPFVl nF9lEDEWFJczU5ThTqdqkkDxOSt2oxThLXFpG95MkWR6l+Gnnq+ff+2Ty 3CscM8UJIV/zNqexm+urASDKfQCHKjQuDMGlc6Py0IWNaTX3VC7XeznzI s=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgsFACMPhVOtJV2S/2dsb2JhbABZgweBKsIcAYEHFnSCJQEBAQMBeQULAgEIGC4yJQIEDgUOiCwI1WcXjlIHgyuBFQSRTIE6hm2TJ4M4gi8
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.98,922,1392163200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="47701189"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 May 2014 22:22:20 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com [173.37.183.78]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s4RMMKRJ024412 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 27 May 2014 22:22:20 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.239]) by xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([fe80::200:5efe:173.37.183.34%12]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 27 May 2014 17:22:19 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks
Thread-Index: AQHPefofKXjflEQNIUin3HFi5dt8+Q==
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 22:22:19 +0000
Message-ID: <99D0C1E7-A15F-46ED-9B40-84649AF467D0@cisco.com>
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6B9A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m261ks7xww.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840070.90801@gmail.com> <m2y4xn7wep.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840723.8010606@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1O_poMR200sjU=ttRvGaeQRkC1ZfXC0Ok4uQxdq3K=NQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2mwe37tbn.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr2t3-vxuG=iDi4biBNFpJwuzuHgfpB74i_uydWWRV7qZg@mail.gmail.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6E02@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m2fvjv7q4h.wl%randy@psg.com> <m1WpDcc-0000BMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <43BB867C-7BCA-45F6-8ADC-A49B34D6C0DC@nominum.com> <m1WpHrp-0000BQC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <9DB71B37-999E-4F7F-A7DA-6B243574E818@nominum.com> <2E2EC822-60EB-4B09-8BB3-D8FB098EB181@delong.com> <CD77B261-5F6F-4177-AA50-0B2DD3D15260@nominum.com> <B95BEA59-B1A2-4CEF-ACF4-63F65FB544AA@delong.com> <4FF6E348-6BB5-473A-8E94-4A3EE8BD32DC@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FF6E348-6BB5-473A-8E94-4A3EE8BD32DC@nominum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.125]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3AA61208-3BD1-47BE-88F0-D96BD815D4C9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/8JjagsEBZ5dbIDIDC-rA4tuQHj0
Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>, 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 22:22:25 -0000

On May 27, 2014, at 12:18 PM, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

> On May 27, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>> In my experience, it is quite easy and not particularly costly to get a /48 routed. Do you have different experience?
> 
> I'm just a poor bastard with a home connection that now (thanks, Comcast!) has native IPv6.   If you tell me that every enterprise on the planet can easily get a /48 routed at no cost, then indeed that's probably the right way to go.   I will defer to others with more experience in these matters to tell me whether or not that is so; my understanding hitherto has been that it is not.

Speaking for myself, identifying every residence on a residential network as a reasonable target for PI prefix assignment sounds like a great reason to dramatically increase the cost to a network that presents a PI prefix, for scaling reasons.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email