Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion

For most use cases private legacy replacement is global addressing. Wide
scale ULA will only encourage NAT66 and similar abominations. The point of
IPv6 is to restore the end-to-end principle to the network (and the way we
*think*) not perpetuate bad ideas.

We should absolutely encourage proper use cases for ULA but the VM farm,
for example, typically *isn't* it. (Someone recently pointed out the
control plane of their mpls fabric -- that's probably a good example.)

Enterprise network admins got sold a bill of goods by vendors who wanted to
keep them ignorant telling them that "NAT = security".

--ckg

On Mon, Aug 1, 2022, 11:18 Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=
40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> +1.
>
>
>
> 1.
>
> DualStack is for a long time in the Enterprise.
>
> ULA priority below IPv4 makes it useless.
>
> People would be looking for a Private IPv4 replacement.
>
> The absence of the replacement would considerably delay IPv6 adoption in
> the Enterprise.
>
>
>
> 2.
>
> Not many expect such ULA priority. People are massively misleaded.
>
>
>
> Eduard
>
> *From:* v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Ed Horley
> *Sent:* Monday, August 1, 2022 6:02 PM
> *To:* Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion
>
>
>
> I support adoption of the draft
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 08:01 Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> At IETF 114, Nick discussed draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula, which is ongoing in
> another thread. He asked for the WG to adopt the draft; should we?
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
> --
>
> ed@hexabuild.io - 925-876-6604
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>