IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Wed, 11 November 2015 22:18 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.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 8747A1B3B44 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:18:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.111
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.111 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 auXIHw_YDHoE for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:18:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [192.159.10.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 456521B3B41 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:18:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from delong-dhcp229.delong.com (delong-dhcp29 [192.159.10.229]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tABMHH64015461 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:17:17 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <563B9D1E.4030606@umn.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:17:16 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2B35AE06-9E77-4092-BDE0-E3997D28CE4C@delong.com>
References: <D25D5920.C914E%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <5637FDD0.70300@jvknet.com> <D25E32F1.C9507%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <CAKD1Yr1VvzkSmJo3hu6t_3CUguLN_UkNZjRUqvU_ygPBTyb+8g@mail.gmail.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45C2319739@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CAKD1Yr3g-ZV+MkbtDrusbtYaZ_wmCxDG9XbT25Ldma4koGpV6A@mail.gmail.com> <D25E7DDF.C9709%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <CAKD1Yr3Vsn7Ny_xSCr_=sVCHyU+=ZrRh2iQDUPx-5FWdHajv2w@mail.gmail.com> <D2614A6A.CA099%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <563B9D1E.4030606@umn.edu>
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/94TuB7kvhV8KdbKUDAIj4RjtxHw>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?
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, 11 Nov 2015 22:18:22 -0000

> On Nov 5, 2015, at 10:17 , David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> wrote:
> 
> On 11/5/15 03:05 , Howard, Lee wrote:
>> 
>> From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com <mailto:lorenzo@google.com>>
>> 
>>    On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Howard, Lee <lee.howard@twcable.com
>>    <mailto:lee.howard@twcable.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>        And so on. It seems pretty clear. Is this language
>>        insufficiently strong for you? What words would you use instead?
>> 
>> 
>>    I would prefer if we used phrasing of the form "<xxx> is considered
>>    harmful" or "<xxx> is not recommended".
>> 
>> 
>> You deleted a lot of context, including the text:
>> 
>> “(NPT66) is not recommended by the IETF.”
> 
> For the most part I like this.  It takes emotional trigger words out of it.  However, I would suggest focusing on Internet connectivity and away from all potential uses of NAT.  I believe the primary objection to NAT is in a general-purpose Internet context, and other more specialized uses might be less objectionable to some.  So something like;
> 
>   Use of NPT66, and NAT66 as a general concept, are NOT RECOMMENDED in
>   the context of general-purpose Internet connectivity.

I could live with this, but I suggest:

“Use of NPT66 and NAT66 as a general concept are NOT RECOMMENDED in the context of internet connectivity.”

If it connects to the v6 internet and it has a v6 address, it shouldn’t need or have NAT in the way.

Sure, some people will do annoying and harmful things with their networks, but there’s no reason we should give them an escape clause to legitimize such activity.

Owen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email