IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-64share

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 30 July 2013 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 83AA321E80FD for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.532
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 8wo+GdHmIThn for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og115.obsmtp.com (exprod7og115.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.217]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4E321E80DB for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:55:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob115.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUffh77xqaKuJ/V8yPGlYTyudS2BRhBRs@postini.com; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:55:28 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 C0B011B8271 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:55:27 -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 ESMTPS id B8567190065; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:55:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:55:20 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-64share
Thread-Index: AQHOjRpdB5svllziVkGDgHdv0CNeipl9uDGAgAAM9YCAAAzCgIAAA54A
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:55:20 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775238774@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <12351.1375184644@sandelman.ca> <CAKD1Yr27Y_wp1f89=gvarUc2q77p9LaKr_y-HJeCzYFPcuqMyA@mail.gmail.com> <9422.1375196203@sandelman.ca> <CAKD1Yr25M+Qj0_iegCMhxMwqq1soKbK849R_Az=zg+0eK+EC4A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr25M+Qj0_iegCMhxMwqq1soKbK849R_Az=zg+0eK+EC4A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <19F75716AE4BCF429F139A9B9287985C@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "Byrne, Cameron" <Cameron.Byrne@t-mobile.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-64share
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: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:56:02 -0000

On Jul 30, 2013, at 5:42 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
> Off-topic, but I don't think this is a fair assumption. The source of the information should determine what domain it's in, not the interface.

There is terminology in the MIF architecture document that I think would help to clarify this discussion if the participants are interested.   Lorenzo is right, and Michael is also right, depending on whether the duplicate IP address is in one explicit provisioning domain or in two explicit or implicit provisioning domains.   It can't ever be in a single implicit provisioning domain.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email