IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Tue, 27 May 2014 19:09 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.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 457E71A0225 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 12:09:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.642
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no
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 w5Y3TSgsVOIh for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 12:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F03D1A06DC for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 12:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2620::930:0:225:ff:fe44:af17] ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:225:ff:fe44:af17]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id s4RJ7e4M030441 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 27 May 2014 12:07:40 -0700
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 owen.delong.com s4RJ7e4M030441
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1401217661; bh=SyJ97c81/TKmUEPC20xX1WmV7Y0=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=0EUfxQM7LEMWwZ0bkQ6Qwse3coOel37J3hZNTFANvWkOjqSK1SIy0Qnfp1M0Ps0c8 9GabTnMaoVmCtF9N0TMq0srlfkRRbuJRfEKqHlW5ERyxWVmoPWca85wrfjsILRsWwb qPx2LECHRNXeRqgAjlVT15lRX29hKruUfqUTqHxY=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CD77B261-5F6F-4177-AA50-0B2DD3D15260@nominum.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 12:11:03 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B95BEA59-B1A2-4CEF-ACF4-63F65FB544AA@delong.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> <m1WpHrp-0000BQC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <9DB71B37-999E-4F7F-A7DA-6B243574E818@nominum.com> <2E2EC822-60EB-4B09-8BB3-D8FB098EB181@delong.com> <CD77B261-5F6F-4177-AA50-0B2DD3D15260@nominum.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0rc1 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]); Tue, 27 May 2014 12:07:41 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/X27MuM7BxC_41QKUimqAc8oOeNY
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 19:09:53 -0000

On May 27, 2014, at 12:04 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

> On May 27, 2014, at 2:54 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>> If they get GUA from RIPE, they don’t need that feature, as there aren’t multiple source addresses to choose from.
>> You’re not making much sense here, Ted.
> 
> If they can get it routed, you are correct.   But we are not assuming that they can, and even if they can, it will probably be costly.   So in practice we can expect them to use that GUA as if it were a ULA, and then they need to use source address selection to ensure that it is only used internally.

In my experience, it is quite easy and not particularly costly to get a /48 routed. Do you have different experience?

Owen
AS 1734
2620:0:930::/48
routed from my home.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email