Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC

Martin Millnert <martin@millnert.se> Tue, 06 August 2013 06:05 UTC

Return-Path: <martin@millnert.se>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD1611E80E0 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 23:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iS18iCLN3zNH for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 23:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ncis.csbnet.se (unknown [95.80.32.84]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D654311E80D5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 23:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ncis.csbnet.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E4C54D6; Tue, 6 Aug 2013 08:05:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ncis.csbnet.se ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ncis.csbnet.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sF5cpvB7hPI4; Tue, 6 Aug 2013 08:05:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.120.225] (h-186-193.a189.priv.bahnhof.se [85.24.186.193]) by ncis.csbnet.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1BF0EB9; Tue, 6 Aug 2013 08:05:52 +0200 (CEST)
References: <CAKD1Yr336sF_Z7BNf4qHHFW7GH2zzMgFxmgRyPADDMpqD=3nWg@mail.gmail.com> <CE25DC9B.52981%victor@jvknet.com> <CAKD1Yr0R_5d-v-Qfjd7C24g+rRyMLH5bxYE4c0+DcqvLxhrvAg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0R_5d-v-Qfjd7C24g+rRyMLH5bxYE4c0+DcqvLxhrvAg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1BA82DF6-277E-4FA0-99CE-8F848E25FF75@millnert.se>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (10B329)
From: Martin Millnert <martin@millnert.se>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 08:05:03 +0200
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 06 Aug 2013 06:05:22 -0000

On 6 aug 2013, at 05:41, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:

> In that case, then that host can use any address that's globally unique, including global unicast or ULA. Global addresses have the advantage that they are unambiguously globally unique, whereas ULA addresses are only probabilistically unique. This means that if you have enough ULA to cause a collision then you will have problems, and if someone misconfigures their machines with the ULA prefix that you picked, then you're sort of SOL. On the other hand, ULA has an advantage over PI addresses because the latter may need to be renumbered if you change ISPs.
> 
> There's also the point that when people say "will never talk to the outside world", that's more often than not an oversimplification. :-)
> 
> Since these points are pretty subtle, they should be carefully worded. I think the right place for that is in the ULA usage document. Why not simply punt to that document?

Enterprises WILL configure addresses without using RIR-coordinated GUA, so just a summary of ULA and instead references to other RFCs, such as 4193 and mentioned drafts, is in order in this document IMO. 

/M