IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com> Tue, 27 May 2014 05:09 UTC

Return-Path: <leo.liubing@huawei.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 641351A0373 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2014 22:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, 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 BmoVZkrLYYV8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2014 22:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90B631A036E for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 May 2014 22:09:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BHG70047; Tue, 27 May 2014 05:09:09 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 27 May 2014 06:08:41 +0100
Received: from NKGEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.39) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 27 May 2014 06:09:08 +0100
Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.207]) by nkgeml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 27 May 2014 13:09:02 +0800
From: "Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks
Thread-Index: Ac943yf4qhJ96dkPR9CtEDOlyHC2QQAMeJCAAAEGaQAAABxQAAAA4z6AAACtv4AAAMLCAAAAXbuAABGuc9A=
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 05:09:02 +0000
Message-ID: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6E02@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.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>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr2t3-vxuG=iDi4biBNFpJwuzuHgfpB74i_uydWWRV7qZg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.132]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6E02nkgeml506mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/b8CeUo5qhQM1cgLoLJlsx1lU8oM
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 05:09:16 -0000


From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lorenzo Colitti
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 12:23 PM
To: Randy Bush
Cc: v6ops WG
Subject: Re: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com<mailto:randy@psg.com>> wrote:
>
> OK, we agree that "forever isolated" just means "will be connected in the
> future". But if we agree on that, then we must accept that "forever
> isolated" is no different from "temporarily isolated". Therefore:
>
> 1. There is only one case - "temporarily isolated".
> 2. We should not design for "forever isolated", since it does not
>    exist.
damn!  houston, we have found a clueon!

Just wanted to put that down in writing very clearly. If everyone agrees with it, then great - call me an idiot for stating the obvious. If people don't agree with it, then better to find that out sooner rather than later.
[Bing] Hi Lorenzo & all,
How about writing it this way:
- Don’t specifically divide the cases into “temporarily” and “forever” in the draft.
- Just say, now you have an isolated network, ULAs are reasonable choice, because it is free and can be used right away.
- But there are some considerations if the network is connected someday:
   * If it connects to another isolated/private network, then comes the collision problem. However, if the ULAs were generated by the standard way, this won’t be a big problem.
  * If it connects to the global Internet, then need some operation to add a new global prefix and ensure the address selection in the right form. Or just put a NAT.
- If these further operations/considerations are unacceptable for some reasons, then the administrators need to be careful with using ULAs in current isolated networks.

Do you agree?

Regards,
Bing

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email