IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment

Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net> Tue, 05 August 2014 21:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ross@eircom.net>
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 934841B2BD1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 pRpQ5KNKj43B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail19.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (mail19.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net [159.134.118.218]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D1FE1B2BBB for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 77828 messnum 312478 invoked from network[213.94.190.12/avas01.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net]); 5 Aug 2014 21:05:55 -0000
Received: from avas01.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (213.94.190.12) by mail19.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (qp 77828) with SMTP; 5 Aug 2014 21:05:55 -0000
Received: from [192.168.43.190] ([86.43.53.4]) by avas01.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net with Cloudmark Gateway id b95q1o01D05SpG60195uhj; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 22:05:55 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net>
In-Reply-To: <53E0C548.9050706@fud.no>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 22:05:49 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5C9FC57A-0DA5-4D36-84AE-CF1D6D17FB44@eircom.net>
References: <256EAE0B-5C11-42C7-BCA1-CEC7EE6713A7@cisco.com> <53DFD634.4020304@fud.no> <53E0C548.9050706@fud.no>
To: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>, IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/hVWuULNsEZpe26MBfw9NhGFV04o
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment
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, 05 Aug 2014 21:05:58 -0000

On 5 Aug 2014, at 12:51, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:

> http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/toreanderson/ietf/blob/master/siit-dc.html
> 
> Comments, criticisms, suggestions, pull requests would be very welcome!

What’s your position on NAPT44 being put in front of an IP service address pool that used RFC1918 space?
Not advocating for that but it would inevitably be tried. 

Ross

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email