Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 05 August 2013 23:27 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 1CBEB21F9E27 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 16:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.849
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sdSqcOEze3pB for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 16:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92B8421F9D0A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 16:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=818; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1375745228; x=1376954828; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=a3yD81kfoCKiuuiB3CF8zZO/kDb8n+K2JWWRIn5btr4=; b=k7adOl3LocY6vXNq7vOzjcT39kM9BWO4dVKLTNf7XkMgiZfv8Vojqny7 WIy9gpamd+yCE3iNYg3hq+U7AWGNO0+69mJzg46wHw8c1Jpdb8+IJls/S SbIDobrcnTPaOuHtMFQnlrByExi+Wr9PzS4iPSQ2j67U78NFhUmlFtkhB Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqoFAKszAFKtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABbgwaBBYJJvC+BJBZ0giQBAQEDAXkFCwIBCBgKJDIlAgQOBQiIAga1UY9kAjEHgxl0A4hyoD2DF4Iq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,822,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="243896854"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Aug 2013 23:27:08 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r75NR8tN021312 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 5 Aug 2013 23:27:08 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.235]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 18:27:07 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC
Thread-Index: AQHOkjNNdzjT7voctUaLF3m4W8p2PA==
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 23:27:07 +0000
Message-ID: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B96EAE7@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
References: <201308041800.r74I03pC023049@irp-view13.cisco.com> <3374_1375690984_51FF60E8_3374_427_1_983A1D8DA0DA5F4EB747BF34CBEE5CD15C5041E1E5@PUEXCB1C.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B96E2C5@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <CAKD1Yr13GK_cuvkt2LpJ1qJo2NR8eUnY-xfwMF_zWfe0P1mm9g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr13GK_cuvkt2LpJ1qJo2NR8eUnY-xfwMF_zWfe0P1mm9g@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.119]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <CFF15BD1F72A2C4DA8F0FCB135B858DA@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 23:27:14 -0000

On Aug 5, 2013, at 3:15 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
> I scratch my head a bit on the vehemence that seems to come across in discussions of the ULA. I understand that there is a strong distaste for NATs, and I share it in the stateful case.
> 
> NAT creates problems for applications not only in the stateful case, but in the stateless case as well, because with NAT the client must be prepared for a situation where it does not know its own address. This complicates peer-to-peer networking applications such as video chat.

I'm not going to argue one way or the other. The substance of my comment related to an address that was not intended to be globally reachable. our thought there?