IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 02 November 2015 23:37 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 6EC111A90A5 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:37:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 kEljyqIrY3tl for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:37:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C20E81A9093 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:37:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2749; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1446507475; x=1447717075; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=lYJZc5eWEr3GNcoHpyRghKLjUlkKmQQHqCFVuJ2lHgw=; b=D67W86/PXjS2J+D57gxoCnVW/Go8LpKiuELpCUi6jX5eK4hikTbeUhRE 7niY+DBM2t/odFQeD43Kb2rBjfoJUpWw6sV41EQrjNacsfHmWhBBIrGlV pSmWgRGvNFhItakAyGHU1hA1KpcxT0H1JNBdokcRFKQcdq2KTXYDuAr0x Y=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 833
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DkAgBs8zdW/4sNJK1eDoMtgUIGv0AOgVqGGQKBNjgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhDUBAQEDAXkFCwIBCBguMiUCBA4FDogaCMFnAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEQCYkHgm6ILIEUAQSWQwGCUYFhiHKcOgEfAUOCER2BGD5yhHeBBwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,236,1444694400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="43243911"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Nov 2015 23:37:37 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-012.cisco.com (xch-rtp-012.cisco.com [64.101.220.152]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tA2Nbb89023222 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 2 Nov 2015 23:37:37 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-012.cisco.com (64.101.220.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 18:37:36 -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; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 18:37:36 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?
Thread-Index: AQHRFcd0foI3scejF0qfprMVih9FcQ==
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 23:37:36 +0000
Message-ID: <BEE8A227-9717-4FBA-BC59-9FAC9D46EAF6@cisco.com>
References: <D25D5920.C914E%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <563733AF.4010509@gmail.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45C231921A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <5637D854.2090203@bogus.com> <5637E84B.5090001@gmail.com> <5637EB69.1080608@umn.edu>
In-Reply-To: <5637EB69.1080608@umn.edu>
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: [10.70.235.76]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_595B1AAA-A1B9-47BD-9BC3-59538703C426"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Kesf4bhg8gehAYGzzrRqZTJ2QQI>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <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: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 23:37:57 -0000

> On Nov 3, 2015, at 8:02 AM, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> wrote:
> 
> +1 We need a document that discussed the pluses and minuses of ULA, there are many misconceptions about them and a lot of the world is starting to actually deploy IPv6. ULA needs to be acknowledged as part of the IPv6 tool box, and tell people how to use the tool. Or, we need to find the consensus to make it go ULA a way.

</chair>

Concur. The confusion actually showed up in the discussion of "Design Choices" yesterday, in the statement made in that draft that "RFC 1918 and ULA addresses are different, but are used in the same way."

Both types of addresses can be used in a network that doesn't attach to the Internet, or for purposes (such as modems in a Cable Modem network) that need to be reachable for the purposes of the network itself but specifically not reachable from outside of it. That was what Viktor told me was meant by "used in the same way".

However, RFC 1918 addresses, by and large, are used behind NATs and translated at a border, while that is not a capability widely supported in v6ops. That's an important difference, likely to be an early thought in the mind of an IPv4 operator wanting to mirror his/her IPv4 design in IPv6. It's something that would want to be redesigned.

That difference should be said somewhere, and the issues pro and con discussed.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email