IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 27 May 2014 14:37 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 77C771A0159 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 07:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] 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 Y2Lly0Ciu7Dl for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 07:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F28D51A011D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 07:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE2BB1B81BF for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 07:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDACC19005C; Tue, 27 May 2014 07:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 27 May 2014 07:37:30 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <m1WpISc-0000CGC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 10:37:28 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EFD7A8B5-7A9D-4135-8DE1-7835D9CE4903@nominum.com>
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> <m1WpHrp-0000BQC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <9DB71B37-999E-4F7F-A7DA-6B243574E818@nominum.com> <m1WpISc-0000CGC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/MBMtEv-DyJke0tgD2IosIFWylDw
Cc: 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 14:37:37 -0000

On May 27, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:
> At the moment, I would not advice anyone to use more than one prefix at the same
> time. It can be made to work, but the operational complexity is high.

ULAs give you a lot of complexity reduction for free.   I tend to agree that multiple prefixes are hard, but this is a problem we need to solve.

> I didn't keep track. Are GUAs now considered out of scope for ULAs?

Yes.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email