Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations-02.txt

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 15/02/2014 19:16, Owen DeLong a écrit :
> Indeed, the situations where ULA usage is detrimental vastly
> outnumbers those where it is actually beneficial.
>
> If we're going to move something like this forward, that really
> should be made clear.

Consider new deployments like IPv6 vehicular networks.

There is an immediate direction to demonstrate an IPv6 vehicle if it 
used ULA.  There is also the alternative to request PI or PA IPv6 
addressing space for these vehicles from some registry, steps which may 
take time.

These two directions are actually head and tail of same snake: it bites 
its end, or otherwise put it's a chicken and egg problem: if the 
deployer sees the prototype works then it may request IPv6 addressing 
space from registry, but not before it sees it works.

At this point I think this draft is good to say that ULAs are useful. 
Later on maybe less so.  But right now that's reflecting real-world 
situation.

That's how I see it, and one's mileage may vary.

But imposing to not do ULA is little reasonable for some test deployments.

Alex
PS:
There are also some intermediary alternatives like IPv4 transitioning 
(6to4 and other tunnels), 64share.  Each has some inconvenients (6to4 
requires both IPv4 and IPv6 on cellular, whereas IPv6-only is easier 
with some operator; 64share only allows one subnet in vehicle).  Also 
one would consider asking the cellular operator to implement DHCPv6 
Prefix Delegation, which may also take time.
>
> Owen
>
> On Feb 14, 2014, at 17:08 , Brian E Carpenter
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Well, there have always been some people against the existence of
>> ULAs, but we did reach rough consensus to define them, since other
>> people see value in them, for reasons that have been aired many
>> times. So writing words about the best way to use them if you want
>> to use them seems right to me.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> On 14/02/2014 23:00, ek wrote:
>>> +1
>>>
>>> ---- On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:34:36 +0900 Randy
>>> Bush&lt;[e-mail]&gt; wrote ----
>>>
>>>
>>> i expected this to be a short draft. "Don't"
>>>
>>> randy
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing
>>> list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
_______________________________________________
>>> v6ops mailing list [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>