IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Wed, 04 November 2015 21:43 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.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 B4A351B33B0 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:43:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 RGon7HpY8Y_A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:43:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yk0-x22f.google.com (mail-yk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 385401B3357 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:43:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ykdr3 with SMTP id r3so97431072ykd.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 13:43:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=QcRhKhk7ntanCW3v31hzz1xcSc4eBR4Sg9jkAtUt3HE=; b=fW/A6+hPfMxzJkTb2boFemYBNeal8kpr+8remJJ50XhmqAzW9Kd2nnyiP3jaKpBYfZ F9u4OSvxI+ymf7N9jzfUgXmVpsQJVLPmVe77WghqT32QnTpOfLxHUO1xermkx2HoO6EA pHWdDK046o1VUw/fTNarheoQfvUZqFLbG2A4rZ1Ejl+FMWjMD0C6hD2fPxBKylKauI8R msBHDCqC7PpU1G3XHe0QDDt6Q6UBIfuBWmzF1pqzTm4g8zhfZ9SV0deHyNQUg64BGDKV GY/oz0UQn/2wsvql/JZboI0rl2oGrf5KwwN4iL1bitAHDO7Yf+fmFmEQVskpPT2vTeXH +3jA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.158.198 with SMTP id h189mr4136103vke.102.1446673394132; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 13:43:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.103.67.194 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:43:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.103.67.194 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:43:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20151104205641.GD70452@Space.Net>
References: <D25FB58B.C9B04%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <20151104104208.GL70452@Space.Net> <0EE48C9B-801D-4670-8D02-248789E2F411@umn.edu> <50027DBA-C4C2-4679-8D1C-2992BE7C3B75@delong.com> <20151104170711.GV70452@Space.Net> <ADA388DF-1E4D-43E4-B2EC-7D3E1B93FCD0@delong.com> <20151104195254.GW70452@Space.Net> <307C3852-01BA-425E-A556-1ACAEC646EFC@delong.com> <20151104201901.GA70452@Space.Net> <A69D1CA5-9753-4032-8223-8B970CB7CB0E@delong.com> <20151104205641.GD70452@Space.Net>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 08:43:13 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2zGroikjHtKqExLbMtcbO-=F4Lc5KU7RvRO23ODmRYWEQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11425cf2c36d1b0523bde50b"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/fff8DM01xXcdwn55f_BWwb0QY3E>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?
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: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 21:43:16 -0000

On 5 Nov 2015 07:57, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 05:41:35PM -0300, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > So I notice you completely left out all of the other responses. Does
that mean that we have consensus that NAT in IPv6 is actually harmful?
>
> No.  It is a tool, which has uses, and drawbacks.  Not having the tool
> available would be harmful.
>
> WE HAVE NO CONSENSUS THAT NAT IS HARMFUL.  For those that are a bit slow.
>

Next time you're about to resort to insults, don't.

Your not going to convince Owen and I by calling us idiots.

(And you'll also have to overcome my 20 years of seeing and encountering
NAT limitations over and over again, including the very first time a
customer of mine wanted to use it in 1995 because one of the earliest NAT
implementations couldn't NAT NetBIOS).

> > Even in the load balancer case, you???ve admitted there are drawbacks.
>
> Sure.  Breathing has drawbacks.

> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A.
Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email