Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

sthaug@nethelp.no Fri, 06 November 2015 07:14 UTC

Return-Path: <sthaug@nethelp.no>
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 342E61B30D5 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 23:14:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 iPZbN5tf7ugP for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 23:14:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CD3F11B3109 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 23:14:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 10110 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2015 07:14:25 -0000
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (HELO localhost) (195.1.209.33) by bizet.nethelp.no with SMTP; 6 Nov 2015 07:14:25 -0000
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 08:14:25 +0100
Message-Id: <20151106.081425.74651560.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: markzzzsmith@gmail.com
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2x3O8A1XKqN3PTcvM=xpF8W_WNSL1rVhHQ4ZY5HbVG=OQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1511050424410.1055@moonbase.nullrouteit.net> <20151106.063106.74659839.sthaug@nethelp.no> <CAO42Z2x3O8A1XKqN3PTcvM=xpF8W_WNSL1rVhHQ4ZY5HbVG=OQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/HK53arc_dm9NDljgBDUnfgjeXMw>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 07:14:29 -0000

> > Okay, one more operator then. I want to have NPT66 (and ULA) available
> > in the toolbox.
> >
> 
> Why would a recommendation against it prevent you using it on your network
> if you wanted to? How is the IETF recommending against it stopping you from
> using it?

I would of course carefully consider the alternatives. But you're right
that it probably wouldn't stop me if I concluded that NPT66 was the best
solution.

> A recommendation not to do something is for people who fundamentally don't
> know better.

Which leaves the people who would like to be provider independent in a
slightly difficult situation. Recommend /48 PI for everybody? Still too
difficult to acquire for many companies, and with significant scaling
problems if enough people start using it. NPT66? "Harmful", as some
people here would like the documents to say.

Steinar Haug, AS 2116