IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Tue, 27 May 2014 22:23 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.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 715EE1A07A4 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 15:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, 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 1HEcG_Ot_qsi for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 15:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [149.20.64.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 258AE1A07A2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 15:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DAC234942E; Tue, 27 May 2014 22:23:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFB34160064; Tue, 27 May 2014 22:28:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c211-30-183-50.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.183.50]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7D72E16005B; Tue, 27 May 2014 22:28:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B12716B8D59; Wed, 28 May 2014 08:23:13 +1000 (EST)
To: Wuyts Carl <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6B9A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m261ks7xww.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840070.90801@gmail.com> <m2y4xn7wep.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840723.8010606@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1O_poMR200sjU=ttRvGaeQRkC1ZfXC0Ok4uQxdq3K=NQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2mwe37tbn.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr2t3-vxuG=iDi4biBNFpJwuzuHgfpB74i_uydWWRV7qZg@mail.gmail.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6E02@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m2fvjv7q4h.wl%randy@psg.com> <m1WpDcc-0000BMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <43BB867C-7BCA-45F6-8ADC-A49B34D6C0DC@nominum.com> <5384937A.90409@foobar.org> <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48D335AAB3D@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 27 May 2014 13:35:22 +0000." <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48D335AAB3D@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 08:23:13 +1000
Message-Id: <20140527222313.7B12716B8D59@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/M3xQSlvh4g8Il_GA04sFjuWNfKQ
Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>, v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 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: Tue, 27 May 2014 22:23:19 -0000

In message <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48D335AAB3D@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com>, Wuyts Carl writes:
> And what's next ?  Stop path MTU discovery support ?  Allow Fragmentation again ?  Anything else ?
> If we start mimic IPv4 fully, we're really going the wrong way .... (my personal opinion of course)

Please state clearly the RFC which disallows fragmentation?
Hint: There isn't one.

Fragmentation is a BASIC part of IPv6.  It is done in the sending
host rather than in the core of the network but it is DONE!!!!!
 
> Regs
> Carl
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard
> Sent: dinsdag 27 mei 2014 15:31
> To: Ted Lemon; Philip Homburg
> Cc: v6ops WG
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks
> 
> On 27/05/2014 13:52, Ted Lemon wrote:
> > If those ULAs happen to clash, you have to renumber at least one of them.
> 
> or use NAT.  I'm not saying this in order to throw fuel on an existing fire, but simply because this is the reality fo
> r many organisations in the
> ipv4 world, and I see little reason why it will change for ipv6.  The IETF can make recommendations about whether it t
> hinks this is a good idea or not, but it is not productive to pretend that the elephant isn't in the room.
> 
> Nick
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email