IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Wuyts Carl <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.com> Tue, 27 May 2014 13:35 UTC

Return-Path: <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.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 ADFF51A011D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 06:35:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 Qiiz5GQqAc-p for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 06:35:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys009aog116.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog116.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.240]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73D3C1A0148 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 06:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mopesedge02.eu.thmulti.com ([129.35.174.203]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob116.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKU4SUnMfUNgM05qiezEibzIGESow+7PxL@postini.com; Tue, 27 May 2014 06:35:36 PDT
Received: from MOPESMAILHTC01.eu.thmulti.com (141.11.100.10) by mopesedge02.eu.thmulti.com (141.11.253.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.342.0; Tue, 27 May 2014 15:35:18 +0200
Received: from MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com ([169.254.2.100]) by MOPESMAILHTC01.eu.thmulti.com ([141.11.100.10]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 27 May 2014 15:35:23 +0200
From: Wuyts Carl <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.com>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>, Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks
Thread-Index: Ac943yf4qhJ96dkPR9CtEDOlyHC2QQAZCzeAAAEGaAAAABxQAAAA4z6AAACtwIAAAMLCAAAAXbqAAAGXQAAAAHTTAAAMrhbdAAMIogAAAViEAAAERMAA
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 13:35:22 +0000
Message-ID: <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48D335AAB3D@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com>
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6B9A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m261ks7xww.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840070.90801@gmail.com> <m2y4xn7wep.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840723.8010606@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1O_poMR200sjU=ttRvGaeQRkC1ZfXC0Ok4uQxdq3K=NQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2mwe37tbn.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr2t3-vxuG=iDi4biBNFpJwuzuHgfpB74i_uydWWRV7qZg@mail.gmail.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6E02@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m2fvjv7q4h.wl%randy@psg.com> <m1WpDcc-0000BMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <43BB867C-7BCA-45F6-8ADC-A49B34D6C0DC@nominum.com> <5384937A.90409@foobar.org>
In-Reply-To: <5384937A.90409@foobar.org>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [141.11.249.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Ba4U3h_X2dle4V0pjcJJiJJGQDI
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 13:35:41 -0000

And what's next ?  Stop path MTU discovery support ?  Allow Fragmentation again ?  Anything else ?
If we start mimic IPv4 fully, we're really going the wrong way .... (my personal opinion of course)

Regs
Carl


-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard
Sent: dinsdag 27 mei 2014 15:31
To: Ted Lemon; Philip Homburg
Cc: v6ops WG
Subject: Re: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks

On 27/05/2014 13:52, Ted Lemon wrote:
> If those ULAs happen to clash, you have to renumber at least one of them.

or use NAT.  I'm not saying this in order to throw fuel on an existing fire, but simply because this is the reality for many organisations in the
ipv4 world, and I see little reason why it will change for ipv6.  The IETF can make recommendations about whether it thinks this is a good idea or not, but it is not productive to pretend that the elephant isn't in the room.

Nick

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email