IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 27 May 2014 09:24 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.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 762A01A006D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 02:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2] 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 mMwSr-jif-c6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 02:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7882E1A0049 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 02:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #91) id m1WpDcc-0000BMC; Tue, 27 May 2014 11:24:38 +0200
Message-Id: <m1WpDcc-0000BMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6B9A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m261ks7xww.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840070.90801@gmail.com> <m2y4xn7wep.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840723.8010606@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1O_poMR200sjU=ttRvGaeQRkC1ZfXC0Ok4uQxdq3K=NQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2mwe37tbn.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr2t3-vxuG=iDi4biBNFpJwuzuHgfpB74i_uydWWRV7qZg@mail.gmail.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6E02@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m2fvjv7q4h.wl%randy@psg.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 27 May 2014 14:22:06 +0900 ." <m2fvjv7q4h.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 11:24:28 +0200
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/hP355_GqB5lf9NNhHM6nGuF2dj0
Subject: Re: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 27 May 2014 09:24:45 -0000

In your letter dated Tue, 27 May 2014 14:22:06 +0900 you wrote:
> and because you can not assume it will remain isolated, if you are
> silly enough to use a ULA today, you had best plan to change that.

In most markets, a 'dentist office' that has an Internet connection and switches
ISPs will get a new prefix.

This is problem that need to be solved anyhow.

So if we can migrate a small business from one prefix to another, we can just as well
do that from ULA to GUA.

I don't see why we would need to discuss the foreverness of ULA, when GUAs are not
at all forever. 

(I naively assume that having all small businesses get a PI prefix is not going to
happen)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email