IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Wed, 28 May 2014 08:24 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 15E581A0884 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 May 2014 01:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.642
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no
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 BUx7XOHjmWKU for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 May 2014 01:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D24BF1A0883 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 May 2014 01:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2620::930:0:225:ff:fe44:af17] ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:225:ff:fe44:af17]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id s4S8JPaP025227 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 May 2014 01:19:26 -0700
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 owen.delong.com s4S8JPaP025227
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1401265166; bh=0KY+JED4hFpCV9E+uDFF056sv0s=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=1/AC5uJzEUrN45AnGclgamuIuNApyECj3mDvOWVWSAHlz5JxJQ6UUNkr/qDnheMbn o/rLEM9MoZW/O5OXgJgEb6DH8DVuN08QkCBIT+cw0/KP1clJiZfHRR4xi79b5dRTSm CvK8wSm9pv/Y1fbk9UXCqNlsIRurTB9VSiE7VHXY=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <5385651B.7090604@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 01:22:48 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BDA997ED-D6DF-4836-A3F2-D8D4D70E9272@delong.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> <9255C827-9F28-4E4E-9A2E-A678ADFACDAF@steffann.nl> <53854E87.9020500@gmail.com> <m2d2ey4mx4.wl%randy@psg.com> <5385651B.7090604@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0rc1 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]); Wed, 28 May 2014 01:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/OrQyN6N4p6_WOEYQtYijBke1eFo
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: Wed, 28 May 2014 08:24:23 -0000

> I understand the problem. Users are idiots, including us when we
> act as users. I am not arguing that ULAs will prevent all operational
> problems caused by private addressing. I am only arguing that there will
> be private addressing and that ULAs will cause fewer problems than
> RFC1918-for-IPv6 would.

I agree, but that’s rather like an argument that the common cold causes less severe symptoms than small pox.

Owen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email