IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 27 May 2014 03:31 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 75A571A0358 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:31:51 -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 o6CQ7sfQJJoe for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:31:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x233.google.com (mail-pb0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42A6A1A0350 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:31:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f51.google.com with SMTP id ma3so8537503pbc.38 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:31:47 -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=KIyy9g7WrPZmn5X5SIestj2F0eJ+xnJsYMZwlq4m2Rc=; b=mdwlSRGbpgrrVCrZXwudhsdyAl7vjFF4vUCNGpBJ2NXxONFwpO2OQo0olsMOkgk6n0 vnlOs6UwpdEr6NjcFFBmiULjkEuQiLv/kAtCXsh4ksFg4FYBLrikOeNns/qMJjhyuA4P +OwQ9+MDP/JX/USTtr8ZJadbKplp6/fDizP2mHNzFmO/IRvx7aqirlpBF7Qcd0nFqUah tJfif0DEjrKidg08+AXJsCQQhOXxyv6HBuD0AWZbADvYTO60Nqvv27NC6BeBVlnoxRca MXZ4pDOD/Gnv93jx6nX2imnK/eLEc9bWUPXUHzM/Xp5tJsZW/PfOM9al14XrFf9Q6HFy t3+A==
X-Received: by 10.69.25.69 with SMTP id io5mr33817170pbd.22.1401161507357; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] (155.199.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.199.155]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id dd5sm20612677pbc.85.2014.05.26.20.31.45 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 26 May 2014 20:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53840723.8010606@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 15:31:47 +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: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6B9A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m261ks7xww.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840070.90801@gmail.com> <m2y4xn7wep.wl%randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2y4xn7wep.wl%randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/UOheHKyzgWKjkmW0YDQMYqE9dRo
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 03:31:51 -0000

On 27/05/2014 15:06, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> we long ago concluded that today's isolated network will most likely
>>> be connected some day.
>> Exactly why I said "If it's forever isolated, a ULA would
>> be appropriate (and fail-safe if it does, in reality, get
>> connected to an ISP)."
>>
>> In fact, I should have said: If it's forever isolated, a ULA would
>> be appropriate (and fail-safe if it does, in reality, get
>> connected to an ISP or another "isolated" network).
> 
> not really.  my point is that it has been proven to be unsafe to assume
> that any network will be forever isolated.

I really think we're agreeing. The only safe assumption is
that a "forever isolated" network will be connected at some
time in the future. Even if it only happens one time in a
hundred, we have to assume it.

If you unexpectedly connect two Net 10s together bad things
will happen. If you unexpectedly connect ULA1 and ULA2
together, less bad things will happen.

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email