IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations-02.txt

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Mon, 17 February 2014 09:48 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 D88D01A042C for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 01:48:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, 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 zq_r6hF6kh9i for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 01:48:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E85DE1A0392 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 01:48:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 97A4EA2; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:48:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 907EB9C; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:48:46 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:48:46 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <B44E0C20-E44A-44CC-A6FD-231872E19670@nominum.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1402171047250.14422@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <20140214091302.13219.20624.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <m21tz6javn.wl%randy@psg.com> <1442fd6c81e.5859224653900445752.5189762259388794287@internetdraft.org> <52FEBE28.1010006@gmail.com> <8E2A8B56-6F05-4F09-BE7E-651B9CA42458@delong.com> <5300CE32.1050808@gmail.com> <BD473E46-E382-44E6-B474-A56D074318FA@delong.com> <B44E0C20-E44A-44CC-A6FD-231872E19670@nominum.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/TY4ItNnscVRQPydG65gc6mvg0J0
Cc: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations-02.txt
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: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 09:48:58 -0000

On Sun, 16 Feb 2014, Ted Lemon wrote:

> On Feb 16, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>> I did not say "don't do ULA". I said that the number of situations where ULA is detrimental vastly outweighs the number where it is useful.
>
> Can you give an example of a case where ULAs are detrimental?

RFC3484 device with IPv4 connectivity but not IPv6 Internet connectivity. 
It will then try to use its ULA address to reach Internet addresses using 
IPv6.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email