IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Tue, 27 May 2014 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.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 2E9571A0795 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 15:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] 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 oA6Ra9OmqYiV for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 15:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF0CA1A0796 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 15:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mbp.local (31.66.208.web-pass.com [208.66.31.202] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s4RMVN3A029487 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 27 May 2014 22:31:24 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <53851236.8020209@bogus.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 15:31:18 -0700
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:30.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/30.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>, Wuyts Carl <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.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> <20140527222313.7B12716B8D59@rock.dv.isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140527222313.7B12716B8D59@rock.dv.isc.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="VuCKSKMJMcusWKUlpsUBcXRvkXr8liNU3"
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Tue, 27 May 2014 22:31:24 +0000 (UTC)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/U85B9q-I-mahCXaiB4qqhfamagw
Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>, 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 22:31:33 -0000

On 5/27/14, 3:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> 
> In message <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48D335AAB3D@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com>, Wuyts Carl writes:
>> 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)
> 
> Please state clearly the RFC which disallows fragmentation?
> Hint: There isn't one.

you know he's referring to intermediate fragmentation...

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460#section-5

> Fragmentation is a BASIC part of IPv6.  It is done in the sending
> host rather than in the core of the network but it is DONE!!!!!

yes.

>> Regs
>> Carl
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard
>> Sent: dinsdag 27 mei 2014 15:31
>> To: Ted Lemon; Philip Homburg
>> Cc: v6ops WG
>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks
>>
>> On 27/05/2014 13:52, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>> If those ULAs happen to clash, you have to renumber at least one of them.
>>
>> or use NAT.  I'm not saying this in order to throw fuel on an existing fire, but simply because this is the reality fo
>> r many organisations in the
>> ipv4 world, and I see little reason why it will change for ipv6.  The IETF can make recommendations about whether it t
>> hinks this is a good idea or not, but it is not productive to pretend that the elephant isn't in the room.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email