IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] IANA assigned prefix for IPv6 benchmarking

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Fri, 31 July 2015 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 7B4DB1B2EA2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 10:19:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 b_6rDkRj79W9 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 10:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7A591AC39D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 10:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2399; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1438363177; x=1439572777; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=t18WPF1U6FgnjbWTkh0RhkkLQ2E/jcrg96cEETK8svo=; b=azJBvIItA/i3n5WX9YTjKDNzDFcpXCqgkRXf+gY+x7YROWZFxsqWv7Ig OWNYIv1sr3+5IHf9QtL37iXYgh2qs4E4nKBfbU06OvROgB6qreByGH7N0 E76Iu+sbJWtTXUiNpKdgTb1tHHVxH/lfe3+1RFPhhSIerM2xFdPdPxHKz Y=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 833
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0B2BQAwrbtV/4ENJK1bgxqBPQa8OId9AoExORMBAQEBAQEBgQqEIwEBAQMBfgsCAQgYLiERJQIEEw6ICwMKCMIzDYUvAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARmLToJOgkCDGIEUBZR4AYI4gVmGTIFrkg+HMCaDfW+BSIEEAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,585,1432598400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="16700620"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Jul 2015 17:19:37 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com [173.36.12.76]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t6VHJaPB016438 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:19:37 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.49]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([173.36.12.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 12:19:36 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] IANA assigned prefix for IPv6 benchmarking
Thread-Index: AQHQy7US02bMjzO8eUKzZzXqhfm9BQ==
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:19:36 +0000
Message-ID: <AD9A0E30-4DB6-4BBF-A0D8-7E575165240D@cisco.com>
References: <6b60e612c4f0.55b20091@naist.jp> <6c008406e2af.55b200cf@naist.jp> <6c00eec89ab8.55b2010d@naist.jp> <6bf095d99dae.55b2014a@naist.jp> <6b50ff96a9ad.55b20188@naist.jp> <6c50a92cde54.55b201c6@naist.jp> <6c50be138e83.55b20205@naist.jp> <6bf08db1e13f.55b20243@naist.jp> <6bf0f7dbdadf.55b20280@naist.jp> <6bf0898ffbd5.55b21ea8@naist.jp> <55B29026.1070906@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <55B29026.1070906@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.117]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F3D17B2E-A80C-45C6-8BE1-68EDDE1570EA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/bqCMi1ASSso6pk14TUZEwy_rcMA>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IANA assigned prefix for IPv6 benchmarking
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:19:39 -0000

> On Jul 24, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> But I heard there may be good reasons to avoid ULA in NAT64.  Not sure which.

</chair>, speaking as someone who communicates on the list.

I find the entire fixation on ULAs and GUAs bizarre. A ULA is a global scope prefix that is not advertised in routing (which one might describe as site-scope, except that we wouldn't want to confuse it with site-local). If someone has a use for a prefix that they don't plan to advertise in routing, that seems to be the poster child use case. If someone plans to speak globally using a given prefix, it should be a global prefix that *is* advertised in routing.

What's with the angst? Is it that someone sees "ULA" and thinks "NAT"? Yes, that would be one use case; if you don't like that use case, we have a library full of RFCs that say why one might not recommend it (RFCs 2993, 4864, and others). We also have other use cases.

Do we REALLY need to wrings our hands one more time?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email