IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] (re)numbering [ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks]

George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> Thu, 29 May 2014 23:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ggm@algebras.org>
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 1FA7F1A06B7 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 May 2014 16:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 pIZ8ApJ_Bs0J for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 May 2014 16:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com (mail-pa0-f44.google.com [209.85.220.44]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 308E31A030D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 May 2014 16:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id lj1so1007090pab.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 May 2014 16:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=i/e3h3Inkppgn0QYC5BrD4FGgjL5ns3foHyLacE2I1k=; b=GV/ceMR6DIWNXKEc9aAHYfHzCa7t2cZ7aENo6kSQExs1Qvbq7biwZZksgsvE5j0o67 5kx4qFaY1yplM8qaHz4swnJ28IA7ciCJfvVDO1CpqlLlPYwPozmjR02AudSfdTyyic5N Zm0f4U+jAQMIRFIVgKr9kJgQ3L+M2bap1oVdLsGrrXt0Qv23g4gZqvY3gu0ge1NrLIzV HGXHG+xOpTYl7m/2MnPtnXvu9es/JuN6MnZBRiIPvMJs9TUsdhFXXMS35Wm398tCUBWe IXTJ1YsXaxgjyscNPn1JxFxKAs9iaszQ456pU6bUIJQdvYZ1HbRR0CB47sITDset3khV opcw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQntW5y9WbMKTSpy5pRJCBGM2FXusnSohNtkJIs7QsNw/bz3Lhyy302+WpOSMZS1zm7m8Emg
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.230.193 with SMTP id ta1mr13416261pac.29.1401405345122; Thu, 29 May 2014 16:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.37.78 with HTTP; Thu, 29 May 2014 16:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:dc0:a000:4:a966:17ee:d662:5566]
In-Reply-To: <20140529153211.BF69216E83F8@rock.dv.isc.org>
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6B9A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <1401141423.52956.YahooMailNeo@web162206.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5383C2CF.6040205@gmail.com> <1401230263.69077.YahooMailNeo@web162206.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <53854B03.8040702@gmail.com> <1401312298.99614.YahooMailNeo@web162205.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <CAEmG1=rz=o3adK5a7M5DOFGVa1GnjKxj3bNRq6896nBQGLOTVQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140529153211.BF69216E83F8@rock.dv.isc.org>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 09:15:45 +1000
Message-ID: <CAKr6gn1DTUnt=9UbQjmCSsk9ZHUpVJtwQM2u7xp0-J=Anx9euA@mail.gmail.com>
From: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b15abb1c861ed04fa921bb7"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/KqBRqgnxLDPsq5DgUty1mC6SgKg
Cc: v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] (re)numbering [ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks]
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 29 May 2014 23:15:51 -0000

How long ago Mark. How old, What OS.

If this is a UNISYS mainframe which used , to separate the elements of the
dotted-quad for instance (yes, that really happened) we'd be entitled to
say "so what"

if this is a Vista or newer OS, we need to know.


On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:

>
> In message <CAEmG1=rz=
> o3adK5a7M5DOFGVa1GnjKxj3bNRq6896nBQGLOTVQ@mail.gmail.com>
> , Matthew Petach writes:
> >
> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Mark ZZZ Smith <
> markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
> > wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > RFC1918s have provided that internal connectivity robustness to both
> home
> > > networks and enterprise networks. Of course the drawback is that in
> IPv4 it
> > > is binary - hosts either have RFC1918s or public addresses, so if you
> have
> > > RFC1918s you have to use NAT to access external destinations on the
> > > Internet.
> >
> > Wow...that's news to me.
> >
> > For a decade now, I've been using
> > RFC1918 addresses+global addresses
> > in IPv4 on my home network; each
> > host has an address from each subnet,
> > and uses the 1918 addresses to reach
> > internal-only devices (printers, terminal
> > servers, etc.) which only have RFC1918
> > addresses, and use the globally routed
> > IPs for reaching non-local destinations.
> >
> > I'm not sure I'd agree with your characterization
> > that IPv4 is different from IPv6 in that regards;
> > there's nothing in the IPv4 world that prevents
> > hosts from having multiple addresses, and
> > making use of them.
> >
> > It's definitely a plus to have internal connectivity
> > stay working regardless of external connectivity,
> > I completely agree with you on that.
> >
> > Matt
>
> It may work with some machine some of the time.  It is not guarenteed
> to work with all machines all of the time.  I've definitely used
> machines which didn't support multiple IPv4 addresses on the same
> interface.
>
>
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email