IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Wuyts Carl <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.com> Tue, 27 May 2014 14:02 UTC

Return-Path: <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.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 183401A038E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 07:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 roryq_zs6e9y for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 07:02:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys009aog123.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog123.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.149]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A6F01A011D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 07:02:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MOPESEDGE01.eu.thmulti.com ([129.35.174.203]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob123.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKU4Sa+QxEnR8l2Vbl4YR5StjVcdu/m9Ro@postini.com; Tue, 27 May 2014 07:02:43 PDT
Received: from MOPESMAILHTC01.eu.thmulti.com (141.11.100.10) by mail3.technicolor.com (141.11.253.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.342.0; Tue, 27 May 2014 15:57:26 +0200
Received: from MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com ([169.254.2.100]) by MOPESMAILHTC01.eu.thmulti.com ([141.11.100.10]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 27 May 2014 15:57:28 +0200
From: Wuyts Carl <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.com>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>, Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks
Thread-Index: Ac943yf4qhJ96dkPR9CtEDOlyHC2QQAZCzeAAAEGaAAAABxQAAAA4z6AAACtwIAAAMLCAAAAXbqAAAGXQAAAAHTTAAAMrhbdAAMIogAAAViEAAAERMAA///j0gD//90zMA==
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 13:57:28 +0000
Message-ID: <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48D335AAB94@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.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> <5384937A.90409@foobar.org> <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48D335AAB3D@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <5384987C.8060405@foobar.org>
In-Reply-To: <5384987C.8060405@foobar.org>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [141.11.249.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/R3rS-1NKRgLRIN16PTZfSYF15dU
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 14:02:52 -0000

Well, lately, it seems more and more the case that NAT can solve all problems, which I don't think will do.
Education indeed will help and there's no magic, but dragging NAT along each time is not helping either.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Hilliard [mailto:nick@foobar.org] 
Sent: dinsdag 27 mei 2014 15:52
To: Wuyts Carl; Ted Lemon; Philip Homburg
Cc: v6ops WG
Subject: Re: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks

On 27/05/2014 14:35, Wuyts Carl wrote:
> 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)

if you feel that NAT may have drawbacks which makes it a less appropriate choice than renumbering, then feel free to suggest some wording for the draft.

Ignoring the existence of NAT will not make it go away.  Educating people on its limitations may lessen its deployment, maybe.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email