Re: [v6ops] (re)numbering [ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks]

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Fri, 30 May 2014 00:45 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 0053B1A0722 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 May 2014 17:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 U6TwNXT_9u41 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 May 2014 17:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CC771A02B5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 May 2014 17:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 704DD349427; Fri, 30 May 2014 00:45:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4D8C160068; Fri, 30 May 2014 00:51:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c211-30-183-50.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.183.50]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 56C14160054; Fri, 30 May 2014 00:51:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4D1616FC229; Fri, 30 May 2014 10:45:41 +1000 (EST)
To: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6B9A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <1401141423.52956.YahooMailNeo@web162206.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5383C2CF.6040205@gmail.com> <1401230263.69077.YahooMailNeo@web162206.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <53854B03.8040702@gmail.com> <1401312298.99614.YahooMailNeo@web162205.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <CAEmG1=rz=o3adK5a7M5DOFGVa1GnjKxj3bNRq6896nBQGLOTVQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140529153211.BF69216E83F8@rock.dv.isc.org> <CAKr6gn1DTUnt=9UbQjmCSsk9ZHUpVJtwQM2u7xp0-J=Anx9euA@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 30 May 2014 09:15:45 +1000." <CAKr6gn1DTUnt=9UbQjmCSsk9ZHUpVJtwQM2u7xp0-J=Anx9euA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 10:45:41 +1000
Message-Id: <20140530004541.C4D1616FC229@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/8W3F_docbovDfK9JSanwaEW8w_I
Cc: v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] (re)numbering [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: Fri, 30 May 2014 00:45:53 -0000

In message <CAKr6gn1DTUnt=9UbQjmCSsk9ZHUpVJtwQM2u7xp0-J=Anx9euA@mail.gmail.com>
, George Michaelson writes:
> 
> How long ago Mark. How old, What OS.

A Brother HL-4040CN printer only supports a single IPv4 address and
it has IPv6 support.  To be fair only supports configuring a single
static IPv6 address but will autoconf multiple ones.  It currently
3 IPv6 addresses (PI + ULA + LL).

This is the difference between what is required by a host/node for
IPv4 and IPv6.  Support for multiple prefixes is required for IPv6.
It isn't required for IPv4.

> If this is a UNISYS mainframe which used , to separate the elements of the
> dotted-quad for instance (yes, that really happened) we'd be entitled to
> say "so what"
> 
> if this is a Vista or newer OS, we need to know.
> 
> 
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
> 
> >
> > In message <CAEmG1=rz=
> > o3adK5a7M5DOFGVa1GnjKxj3bNRq6896nBQGLOTVQ@mail.gmail.com>
> > , Matthew Petach writes:
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Mark ZZZ Smith <
> > markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
> > > wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > RFC1918s have provided that internal connectivity robustness to both
> > home
> > > > networks and enterprise networks. Of course the drawback is that in
> > IPv4 it
> > > > is binary - hosts either have RFC1918s or public addresses, so if you
> > have
> > > > RFC1918s you have to use NAT to access external destinations on the
> > > > Internet.
> > >
> > > Wow...that's news to me.
> > >
> > > For a decade now, I've been using
> > > RFC1918 addresses+global addresses
> > > in IPv4 on my home network; each
> > > host has an address from each subnet,
> > > and uses the 1918 addresses to reach
> > > internal-only devices (printers, terminal
> > > servers, etc.) which only have RFC1918
> > > addresses, and use the globally routed
> > > IPs for reaching non-local destinations.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I'd agree with your characterization
> > > that IPv4 is different from IPv6 in that regards;
> > > there's nothing in the IPv4 world that prevents
> > > hosts from having multiple addresses, and
> > > making use of them.
> > >
> > > It's definitely a plus to have internal connectivity
> > > stay working regardless of external connectivity,
> > > I completely agree with you on that.
> > >
> > > Matt
> >
> > It may work with some machine some of the time.  It is not guarenteed
> > to work with all machines all of the time.  I've definitely used
> > machines which didn't support multiple IPv4 addresses on the same
> > interface.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mark Andrews, ISC
> > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > v6ops mailing list
> > v6ops@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> >
> 
> --047d7b15abb1c861ed04fa921bb7
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> <div dir=3D"ltr">How long ago Mark. How old, What OS.<div><br></div><div>If=
>  this is a UNISYS mainframe which used , to separate the elements of the do=
> tted-quad for instance (yes, that really happened) we&#39;d be entitled to =
> say &quot;so what&quot;</div>
> <div><br></div><div>if this is a Vista or newer OS, we need to know.</div><=
> /div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, =
> May 30, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Mark Andrews <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mail=
> to:marka@isc.org" target=3D"_blank">marka@isc.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
> x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
> In message &lt;CAEmG1=3Drz=3D<a href=3D"mailto:o3adK5a7M5DOFGVa1GnjKxj3bNRq=
> 6896nBQGLOTVQ@mail.gmail.com">o3adK5a7M5DOFGVa1GnjKxj3bNRq6896nBQGLOTVQ@mai=
> l.gmail.com</a>&gt;<br>
> <div><div class=3D"h5">, Matthew Petach writes:<br>
> &gt;<br>
> &gt; On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Mark ZZZ Smith &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:=
> markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au">markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au</a>&gt;<br>
> &gt; wrote:<br>
> &gt; [...]<br>
> &gt;<br>
> &gt; &gt; RFC1918s have provided that internal connectivity robustness to b=
> oth home<br>
> &gt; &gt; networks and enterprise networks. Of course the drawback is that =
> in IPv4 it<br>
> &gt; &gt; is binary - hosts either have RFC1918s or public addresses, so if=
>  you have<br>
> &gt; &gt; RFC1918s you have to use NAT to access external destinations on t=
> he<br>
> &gt; &gt; Internet.<br>
> &gt;<br>
> &gt; Wow...that&#39;s news to me.<br>
> &gt;<br>
> &gt; For a decade now, I&#39;ve been using<br>
> &gt; RFC1918 addresses+global addresses<br>
> &gt; in IPv4 on my home network; each<br>
> &gt; host has an address from each subnet,<br>
> &gt; and uses the 1918 addresses to reach<br>
> &gt; internal-only devices (printers, terminal<br>
> &gt; servers, etc.) which only have RFC1918<br>
> &gt; addresses, and use the globally routed<br>
> &gt; IPs for reaching non-local destinations.<br>
> &gt;<br>
> &gt; I&#39;m not sure I&#39;d agree with your characterization<br>
> &gt; that IPv4 is different from IPv6 in that regards;<br>
> &gt; there&#39;s nothing in the IPv4 world that prevents<br>
> &gt; hosts from having multiple addresses, and<br>
> &gt; making use of them.<br>
> &gt;<br>
> &gt; It&#39;s definitely a plus to have internal connectivity<br>
> &gt; stay working regardless of external connectivity,<br>
> &gt; I completely agree with you on that.<br>
> &gt;<br>
> &gt; Matt<br>
> <br>
> </div></div>It may work with some machine some of the time. =C2=A0It is not=
>  guarenteed<br>
> to work with all machines all of the time. =C2=A0I&#39;ve definitely used<b=
> r>
> machines which didn&#39;t support multiple IPv4 addresses on the same<br>
> interface.<br>
> <span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
> <br>
> --<br>
> Mark Andrews, ISC<br>
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia<br>
> PHONE: <a href=3D"tel:%2B61%202%209871%204742" value=3D"+61298714742">+61 2=
>  9871 4742</a> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 INTE=
> RNET: <a href=3D"mailto:marka@isc.org">marka@isc.org</a><br>
> </font></span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> v6ops mailing list<br>
> <a href=3D"mailto:v6ops@ietf.org">v6ops@ietf.org</a><br>
> <a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops" target=3D"_blank">h=
> ttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops</a><br>
> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
> 
> --047d7b15abb1c861ed04fa921bb7--
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org