IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 24 June 2014 13:14 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 E65451B294D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 06:14:47 -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 xR_gIIV5vLoL for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 06:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAEEC1B2942 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 06:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 670ED1B806B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 06:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49E30190071; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 06:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (174.62.147.182) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 06:14:40 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <53A94E88.6070101@foobar.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 09:14:38 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <8E5FC7CC-454E-437F-A85B-69366BC5D7B5@nominum.com>
References: <43BB867C-7BCA-45F6-8ADC-A49B34D6C0DC@nominum.com> <5384937A.90409@foobar.org> <m2iooq4oqi.wl%randy@psg.com> <5385762E.5020901@dougbarton.us> <5385AA97.1050207@fud.no> <53864DCB.5070202@gmail.com> <53865EA2.9000502@fud.no> <02dc01cf7c06$cc6a4bc0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <97390E9C-460F-4D08-AFCE-E4A991E2B0E4@cisco.com> <46D22F62-3528-4B9D-9FCF-C9C7466A9ABA@delong.com> <20140531104145.GQ46558@Space.Net> <m1WqqZ4-0000DqC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <20140531214908.10FEE1719BB4@rock.dv.isc.org> <m1WqrFK-0000BHC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <23125E9D-85A1-49EB-ACE6-DB5EAC67EE02@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr0pvet1oOip-Y2Xi_h2mSZfW1R5HtfiAGbDEns0dY-d2A@mail.gmail.com> <2A4B72CD-EDF3-4D11-AC39-B65892F9173F@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr2NH4Kca4EvhjN2XnDbt8F2eS56ipxu3npH9yOh1bmQaA@mail.gmail.com> <F12F173B-9FF2-4EF8-B11E-33AEDA24961F@nominum.com> <20140602013829.875B917236AC@rock.dv.isc.org> <53A843C9.1040002@gmail.com> <70F894D7-8701-420F-B16F-F8EAF3AE276F@nominum.com> <53A94E88.6070101@foobar.org>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
X-Originating-IP: [174.62.147.182]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/DlCpJJ_WRhDhgryJ5qDbo0SMzwA
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] PI [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, 24 Jun 2014 13:14:48 -0000

On Jun 24, 2014, at 6:10 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> ...or any of the situations where it might make sense in the same way that
> it might make sense for ipv6, which is why all major operating systems have
> GUI access to make it easy to add secondary ipv4 addresses on any
> interface.  Secondary ipv4 addresses are completely mainstream, even if we
> all used them before they were cool.

So e.g. you would use a secondary IPv4 address on a host to do multihoming?   And you would argue that this works sufficiently well that we should treat it as commonplace?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email