IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Focused discussion: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Wed, 06 January 2016 00:24 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 9A82D1B2DAF for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:24:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 atTkcJWM3mjx for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:24:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50F261B2DAD for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:24:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2100; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1452039898; x=1453249498; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=rDkvbY1KGFhdokfl+2yMAwSGqlLn9CdR0cosOSzMAGQ=; b=KTXvqg8OOZFCIikpYFZ9TU0Bd597/L/wHIXWZPW3s2Nkic+FL/Ew11we fOw3OzobGkFvx4SrUl5jFmlNU8aIoyr3ZKO1ljgCKJDHg05De+L4B9hZl Lzoyi8YxOXSDKKe/OXUAepyHDGDM2vKco+hExbixpONpR6Eb1P9t5AQjE I=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 833
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DFAgACXoxW/4sNJK1egzqBPwaIU7NoDoFkhg8CgSA4FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQ0AQEBAwF5BQsCAQgYLjIlAgQOBQ6IGQjCOgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQ8JiGWCcIghgRsFlwgBgnKBZYh7jnmOQAEgAUOCDIF+cgGEWIEIAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,526,1444694400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="224517530"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 06 Jan 2016 00:24:57 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-014.cisco.com (xch-rcd-014.cisco.com [173.37.102.24]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u060OvwD020115 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 6 Jan 2016 00:24:57 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-013.cisco.com (173.37.102.23) by XCH-RCD-014.cisco.com (173.37.102.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 18:24:56 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-013.cisco.com ([173.37.102.23]) by XCH-RCD-013.cisco.com ([173.37.102.23]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 18:24:56 -0600
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Fred Templin <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Focused discussion: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host
Thread-Index: AQHRSBirRO+Tiu5b1E6F3aUR0bRoTQ==
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:24:56 +0000
Message-ID: <6065AA2A-25BB-4B32-B88B-40A856D0E1EA@cisco.com>
References: <201601031900.u03J0LMe009763@irp-lnx1.cisco.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F988DB@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <D2B0A71C.1B6D3F%john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F99D14@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F99D14@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.123.81]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F7DE9C5F-55AD-4444-B7EA-D62233BB48E5"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/8jqsCIrP8tawkJ3j0tPVx0XxQP0>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, John Brzozowski <John_Brzozowski@cable.comcast.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Focused discussion: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host
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: <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: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:24:59 -0000

> On Jan 5, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> 
>> respect the fact that AERO has been around for some time, however, it does
>> not appear to be widely deployed.
> 
> That is irrelevant.

I'm sorry, no, it is relevant. We're not talking about IPv5, IPv7, TUBA, RFC 3053, RFC 5572, ISATAP (which one actually can describe as widely deployed or having once been widely deployed) or quite a long list of other technologies.

In a draft whose primary purpose (BCP) is to ask network administrators to not restrict hosts or host interfaces to a single address, discussing a technology that might or might not have promise but is not widely received as a common current practice is at best irrelevant.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email