IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Tue, 27 May 2014 03:06 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 BE9101A0348 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] 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 J7vmJxOnXxS8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:06:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B5DB1A0347 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:06:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1Wp7iR-0000As-LY; Tue, 27 May 2014 03:06:16 +0000
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 12:06:22 +0900
Message-ID: <m2y4xn7wep.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53840070.90801@gmail.com>
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6B9A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m261ks7xww.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840070.90801@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/AlAZnxR9jqQ2eRtaVtRcOZk6pkM
Cc: 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 03:06:21 -0000

>> we long ago concluded that today's isolated network will most likely
>> be connected some day.
> 
> Exactly why I said "If it's forever isolated, a ULA would
> be appropriate (and fail-safe if it does, in reality, get
> connected to an ISP)."
> 
> In fact, I should have said: If it's forever isolated, a ULA would
> be appropriate (and fail-safe if it does, in reality, get
> connected to an ISP or another "isolated" network).

not really.  my point is that it has been proven to be unsafe to assume
that any network will be forever isolated.

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email