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

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Thu, 05 November 2015 01:05 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.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 4FA241A21B6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:05:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.11
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 n-luVWyydeYr for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:05:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [192.159.10.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B00751ACD62 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:05:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.54] (232.149.220.201.itc.com.ar [201.220.149.232] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tA512Q49012430 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:02:31 -0800
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8F6AECB5-02CB-452D-AD68-099725C909F6"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <02183D7D-19E5-46DE-A5EC-2CB8D27A996A@bogus.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 22:02:25 -0300
Message-Id: <14CD1A69-CBDC-4634-BDED-EA7AC7928935@delong.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> <03358859-8078-489E-835D-3B4D324381BE@delong.com> <20151103204237.GJ70452@Space.Net> <CAO42Z2xen4gCfkJphZYKfjff5ZsEn_jOf5V16OtYOYNw2VKVAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3Qn48eQ1Q4VovCsr_S2+RADRZKzi9qBDoh8G2w6Be+=g@mail.gmail.com> <BCE63ABB-C13E-4083-91F9-C4736328E6ED@cisco.com> <02183D7D-19E5-46DE-A5EC-2CB8D27A996A@bogus.com>
To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Kzszn9DOw3RqnaogpvxzTDxmkk0>
Cc: v6ops list <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: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 01:05:43 -0000

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 7:44 PM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Nov 4, 2015, at 21:26, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com <mailto:fred@cisco.com>> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 10:18 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com <mailto:lorenzo@google.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com <mailto:markzzzsmith@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> It'll also discourage IPv6 adoption if they go away.
>>> 
>>> If people have to pay for IPv6 address space just to use IPv6 they'll either steal public IPv6 space to use instead, or stick with IPv4 and RFC1918s.
>>> 
>>> I don't think that's a good argument. I think it's more important to preserve the architecture and end-to-end than to rush "IPv6" adoption by deploying it the wrong way. If there are reasons we can't use global addresses everywhere (e.g., the inability to multihome), then we need to fix those, and I'd rather we accept a slightly lower adoption rate as the price of doing it right.
>>> 
>>> IPv6 adoption seems to be growing just fine at the moment. If NAT is what you want, use IPv4.
>> 
>> So, in your mind, the only usage of ULA is NAT. I actually think there are other uses, such as for addressing cable modems and the like that don't go through a NAT.
> 
> Stable interior only prefixes in the absensence of pi.
> 
> Numbering of temporarily isolated networks sandboxes and so on. Link local only goes so far.

True, but there’s no advantage to using ULA for this over GUA if you have GUA available.


> 
>> Assume we agree that NAT is evil. Is there a reason uses in which an address is excluded from inter-network usage is therefore bad?
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops