Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC

Lorenzo Colitti <> Wed, 07 August 2013 14:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F33A521F9223 for <>; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 07:19:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.677
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D1kYXsUEdctT for <>; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 07:19:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::235]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 623C921F91CA for <>; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 07:19:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k18so3537946oag.12 for <>; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 07:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=zdLmv0J7N0tBvPqwM5aBHkMez51XkTdO/yUH6x3DH6c=; b=W1PyGNpRcL9kOdajDBxQWlgx3HPVV6r/ac1BXwrRuxn9Ym/5TmCMXi4aTShYP2y9ss zls7JCMuuvE6qpyt1qrebuTNltJncTLTDHPqDsfy9iOixMTHYpyKadbKbITYS26oIgFw zgJfWmchrA85fVJVIfSIEktKlV1AC+bVwh2IJjhDGbbbc1VO9p86rbNXpvgxPVEYSUSe eYH4l8KEBd5Krpjp+EIzQ6GgWt0WciA/ExwVwPvA0M3vvk8ZX2lx+eFKWIKC/2oRtaHd 2HM/arSnSeQGb2bXhzGC5bZvOLtZ2WUuCW5qUNVx5W+ZTRkG1fcMU+Ass+/eTRY6ATWY 0zAg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=zdLmv0J7N0tBvPqwM5aBHkMez51XkTdO/yUH6x3DH6c=; b=OfcWSynQEjTFH7Q50kAh3UAhEksUa3NstrETlnFQOS9QZFUIMXHZFfm/XevyMPMPov v35p11UF/XHos0Yae9GlvKaaSlX8AhxUusNS2zrRQjJ7+C0CxxEGj5GviBIerzKmZfdh h/ctY9tY5B5P/YP6Lxsi73iO4GMD+jEjWUjAX9M3quMJ1HRmxYw9UbsGbE0Nrac01CI7 hAYp/x3dbVpZRs88lCm3mK1gi3BUbi5TvqMTvegMtgF1DbWhDYQgPgnYXdiYOuzHFG1p rCecTclRaxZoXXWOSWlQ7Zh7LC/Cf3ZaZjsHPM+sQtzHSg+Wqgb9eOb7ujDAO7ACRoNr SUCw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm1s13MAnZyJqfJbu0j099vY5D/oyt6s2z5AOl+9P+7sqJg4wAH3z0ERF5pHdXVI4FM/M7lalOmi18led58/+7yFIa3T2OvmziBXh6WjG+oIA0R5wcJBkvUcyeWN/gMrl0kW8is/mh3Zc6/97NMpkSh3Z/wZUwhRIG3yjpMVSH4uV0hu8ApqJ7NnwaFUZEbCpUF5Qy1
X-Received: by with SMTP id y6mr82553iga.17.1375885190793; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 07:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 07:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 23:19:30 +0900
Message-ID: <>
To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c31b660cb1c004e35c3cc4
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 14:19:53 -0000

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <>wrote;wrote:

>  -       **Having the internal network up when DHCP-PD is failing because
> WAN link is down (at least they keep ULA and loose only their GUA), this
> should be mentioned in our I-D

I think we all agree that ULA + GUA is an accepted use case that should go
into this document as well. Are you saying that ULA-only should to into
this document as well? I don't think there is consensus on that.

-       **Having a simple and cheap way to do multi-homing, search about
> multi-homing, load-balancing, ... for SMB and those boxes uses RFC 1918
> inside + NAT towards two ISP or two links (xDSL & 4G)... Not all SMB will
> get a PI space and will run BGP.

That's why we're working on source+destination based routing, which is a
much better solution than anything involving translation. and since this is
an IETF document, I think it should document src+dst routing (which is
gaining consensus and has a lot of work going on around it in various
working groups) over ULA-only, whose only reason for existence is "it's
similar to what we do in IPv4, which we all hate".

> -éric (and YES I dislike NAPT for breaking apps, and making security worse)

NPTv6 breaks apps too. For example, it will break anything using libjingle
(e.g., Google video chat).