Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

[Mark Smith <[e-mail]>]

On 6 Nov 2015 4:31 PM, <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > That makes it sound like IETF is not "endorsing" NPT66, as opposed to
> > actively recommending that people don't use it. I'm with Lorenzo here -
> > I would prefer very strong language in the form of "deployment of NPT66
is
> > concidered harmful" or "we strongly recommend against the use of NPT66".
>
> Okay, one more operator then. I want to have NPT66 (and ULA) available
> in the toolbox.
>

Why would a recommendation against it prevent you using it on your network
if you wanted to? How is the IETF recommending against it stopping you from
using it?

A recommendation not to do something is for people who fundamentally don't
know better.

If you know better, meaning you understand the costs and consequences, and
the owners of the network are willing to pay those costs and deal with the
consequences, then there is nothing stopping you. Nobody is and can force
you to follow the recommendation in your own network.

(Having directly and indirectly paid those costs and having dealt with the
consequences of NAT in IPv4, I don't want to pay them in IPv6, and I don't
think those who don't know better should inadvertently have to end up
paying them either. I personally see the lack of reason for NAT, due to
plenty of addresses, and mechanisms to help smoothly renumber, to be the
most important properly if IPv6.)

Regards,
Mark.

> Steinar Haug, AS 2116
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops