IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 05 August 2014 22:36 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 0604B1A0345 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 15:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 ZF_ShZ0a5CBS for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 15:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x230.google.com (mail-oi0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E489A1B2C14 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 15:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-f48.google.com with SMTP id h136so1101582oig.35 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 15:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ybEcZcBcEEa7ZKXgY9kw5C4Q0ExZXcgkoWk6rWazcfQ=; b=Pw+5nOD2B49j1FLzdCcPCNFRlorV0k1386wI6gWg6e2gYqXZRozszeEzwyHctcxjmH 2rpU9qMpDOSLoiE6dFSUFPKv7MhgTQJwaFhMZyOGtUrZ3VHuLM8gIh7XvXZAEp01vQQI NVoxVE/6MlbgtvzgLHpex1hWtT/x2O+vAsbpg4TwXZDvr03ZNZWNeDXVVa0KROZLOGj4 6Ssf8Ph1pOmFLcoQJiGtlFYieQ3NziH0ClLVCtWRBL3HLQ/dLPGvO9+oeJvSlIVUmLT+ nhgciGCIpa9HVz9NLICmnXsv+CvHlcXHd4IF0uRY4UIdb20yXUVkRJoNfz21qlyXbCFi hY1g==
X-Received: by 10.60.51.9 with SMTP id g9mr10016260oeo.63.1407278203397; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 15:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.24.60.8] (wireless-nat-21.auckland.ac.nz. [130.216.30.132]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t2sm6502436obg.27.2014.08.05.15.36.41 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Aug 2014 15:36:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53E15C7E.2040100@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 10:36:46 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net>
References: <256EAE0B-5C11-42C7-BCA1-CEC7EE6713A7@cisco.com> <53DFD634.4020304@fud.no> <53E0C548.9050706@fud.no> <5C9FC57A-0DA5-4D36-84AE-CF1D6D17FB44@eircom.net>
In-Reply-To: <5C9FC57A-0DA5-4D36-84AE-CF1D6D17FB44@eircom.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/QlfaNgcC3Av63T_BR8dfkXqzprY
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment
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, 05 Aug 2014 22:36:46 -0000

On 06/08/2014 09:05, Ross Chandler wrote:
> On 5 Aug 2014, at 12:51, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:
> 
>> http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/toreanderson/ietf/blob/master/siit-dc.html
>>
>> Comments, criticisms, suggestions, pull requests would be very welcome!
> 
> What’s your position on NAPT44 being put in front of an IP service address pool that used RFC1918 space?
> Not advocating for that but it would inevitably be tried. 

s/would be/has been/

That's exactly why 100.64.0.0/10 was reserved.

    Brian


   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email