Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC

Victor Kuarsingh <> Tue, 06 August 2013 02:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2BFD21F9D52 for <>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 19:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.401
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.199, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YwZy9Md5hkrW for <>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 19:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF54521F9CBD for <>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 19:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id cl20so1379693qab.2 for <>; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 19:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=x-gm-message-state:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id :thread-topic:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type; bh=JYfyj9nH1OxqIJw/dSkk8zcU9sjGTjRa5tXFx383b4I=; b=UHRV4ZwG8HMc3ySM5qIMxSwWcbltdsAGZ/PIUx2/1pLo9P+Uz0lLI+ZB9Npycyoigp t/vj57Y4uY9a7Rt3AlkGS8WJSLBp+U6dgfeCJ2gzKvP/nKHA61vyDnpnlr/GUrODOgzi whRFR0XXy4jOjGsRUvmI4qb+H2wdBunJ3rQ3MoRzDEG7oR9Ize3aTohXmJZZngOSSBnT obi1+P5IoX9/SEWnzCPWJ1a9q7AoTrdZRuz4K40oBy9lG2fHsPViXeG+RSjHmE9iGSky XaYxG38koVbfWPqplNKwAVRJczi5K6OgkZv9Bym+7Qp6Ls/OAY9GIs5BgZ1mhxRRMuVj Xuzw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmzg+0hesyr7k9pXLAF7ar83v7V9UjPS8M+eCbl3FsVn/AZblwhEyC36uKbYR/KTwfVp+qi
X-Received: by with SMTP id 7mr637042qax.84.1375757615357; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 19:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id q15sm1462277qak.5.2013. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 05 Aug 2013 19:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 22:53:27 -0400
From: Victor Kuarsingh <>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3458588013_24153524"
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 02:53:42 -0000



From:  Lorenzo Colitti <>

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Victor Kuarsingh <> wrote:
>>> >>For clarity, if the text remaining mentioned ULAs, but text removed
>>> connecting it to NPT or NAT, would that meet your objections?

>If this draft describes the use of ULAs only in conjunction with global
addresses, and states that they cannot be used by themselves, noting >that this
is different from IPv4, where a host can have only private addresses and
function properly, then that's likely to be non->controversial, because it just
repeating what's written in RFC 4193. Mentioning a use case where a host only
has ULAs, or suggesting the >use of ULA+NPTv6, is likely going to be

What about the use case of a host that has no global connectivity
requirements? I know of cases in the SP world where this is true, although
this draft is for Enterprise, but they may have similar cases (I.e. Closed
network environments, testing beds, etc).

>>>  >>We then point to drafts (draft-liu-v6ops-running-multiple-prefixes)
>>> >>and (draft-liu-v6ops-running-multiple-prefixes)

>I take it you mean "draft-liu-v6ops-running-multiple-prefixes" and

Yes, my bad.  My cut/paste skills are poor this evening.


Victor K