IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Sun, 08 November 2015 02:53 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 20E011B29ED for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 18:53:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -116.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-116.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 nYPqD6JVbWIK for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 18:53:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B03831B2A01 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 18:53:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2008; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1446951188; x=1448160788; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=hh6Kg8Q4cYf2LESydsF4kmwy8U3EK5iZoa5pYoaOsgI=; b=FWArBAdnj6iShDz16I2U72gDPza8GyX1oIJ949lNTF5+urjSZqGNYgcH yMovl6CkNylRF8kCerQ6qS1NBYIrRbZSag7lkb5U+DhnRA5hwrxePg6uJ bWujYnHh+6h9CrSC0QabfLHrGaO8TGuNhX+4cTjpzj9hKwsz0z6NTzcjE g=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 833
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CvAgD1tz5W/5RdJa1egzuBQga+JA6BYYYQAoEbOBQBAQEBAQEBgQqENQEBAQMBeQULAgEIGC4yJQIEDgUOiBgIwREBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEPCYhkgm6IJIEVBZZIAYJSgWGIc5xEAR8BQ4QEcoRfgQcBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,260,1444694400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="205611478"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Nov 2015 02:53:08 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tA82r7ZC002238 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 8 Nov 2015 02:53:07 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 21:53:06 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 21:53:06 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?
Thread-Index: AQHRGdCYYRKmLLsK4kOhvs9CJLWv9g==
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:53:06 +0000
Message-ID: <A0F472CE-F391-486C-AAD5-E876667AA7E5@cisco.com>
References: <D25D5920.C914E%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <5637FDD0.70300@jvknet.com> <D25E32F1.C9507%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <CAKD1Yr1VvzkSmJo3hu6t_3CUguLN_UkNZjRUqvU_ygPBTyb+8g@mail.gmail.com> <20151103061723.3C7DA3BBB9D8@rock.dv.isc.org> <B2963AE7-F365-4619-95EE-9040320B79CC@cisco.com> <20151108013750.A3C9D3C120BF@rock.dv.isc.org> <20151108015059.E16F33C121F8@rock.dv.isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20151108015059.E16F33C121F8@rock.dv.isc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.100.235]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4358CBD6-1F26-44C4-987D-639B05CDE4B3"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/KKjueq74YBKIta3_0fjcUGgafVM>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <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: Sun, 08 Nov 2015 02:53:10 -0000

> On Nov 8, 2015, at 10:50 AM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
> 
> We are wanting smaller sites to move from PA + NAT (IPv4) to PA +
> ULA (IPv6).  We should be subjecting ourselves to that configuration.

I commented to the authors of draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices that they would do well to mention PA and PA+ULA as separate choices, to help the conversation to not rathole on the subject of ULA. They didn't choose to do so, but I would commend the thought to the working group.

If you don't like ULAs, don't use them.

I would encourage discussion of the draft to find another three letter acronym to focus on. The recurrent theme gets boring.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email