IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Tue, 27 May 2014 13:30 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 920B11A0137 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 06:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 tdub8Gd6C8Qc for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 06:30:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 405D51A011D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 06:30:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from cupcake.foobar.org ([IPv6:2001:4d68:2002:100::110]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.14.8/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s4RDUYNV032164 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 27 May 2014 14:30:34 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.netability.ie: Host [IPv6:2001:4d68:2002:100::110] claimed to be cupcake.foobar.org
Message-ID: <5384937A.90409@foobar.org>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 14:30:34 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>, Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.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>
In-Reply-To: <43BB867C-7BCA-45F6-8ADC-A49B34D6C0DC@nominum.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/_wGFgYS6MeXgBQoHlWuJj5JBPcA
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 13:30:43 -0000

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 for 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 thinks this is a good idea or
not, but it is not productive to pretend that the elephant isn't in the room.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email