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

[Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]>]

Lorenzo

(in-line)

From:  Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>


On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]> 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
controversial.

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
"draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations"?

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

Regards,

Victor K