IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Focused discussion: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Wed, 06 January 2016 00:40 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.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 C39591A020D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:40:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 MOhpxrev1mG1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:40:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (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 AE7A51A01F4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:40:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mb-2.local ([IPv6:2601:647:4204:51:9d99:245c:874e:583a]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id u060eVDH026877 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 6 Jan 2016 00:40:32 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>, Fred Templin <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
References: <201601031900.u03J0LMe009763@irp-lnx1.cisco.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F988DB@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <D2B0A71C.1B6D3F%john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F99D14@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <6065AA2A-25BB-4B32-B88B-40A856D0E1EA@cisco.com>
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Message-ID: <568C627F.90801@bogus.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 16:40:31 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/43.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6065AA2A-25BB-4B32-B88B-40A856D0E1EA@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Wxght7k9G2TeTjWlB762efp2AelkDVMMs"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/gOfGQbBgKHmp6_A7upjxw6nWb5A>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, John Brzozowski <John_Brzozowski@cable.comcast.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Focused discussion: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host
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, 06 Jan 2016 00:40:39 -0000

On 1/5/16 4:24 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>
> In a draft whose primary purpose (BCP) is to ask network
> administrators to not restrict hosts or host interfaces to a single
> address, discussing a technology that might or might not have promise
> but is not widely received as a common current practice is at best
> irrelevant.

I tend to concur, if you're going to provide advice to an operator
audience that strikes at current practice, relevance  involves present
usage.

joel

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
> v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email