IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Tue, 27 May 2014 04:13 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 3D9AC1A0363 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2014 21:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] 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 x1dQK86A6NtI for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2014 21:12:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 264331A0347 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 May 2014 21:12:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1Wp8kv-0000MI-RE; Tue, 27 May 2014 04:12:54 +0000
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 13:13:00 +0900
Message-ID: <m2mwe37tbn.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr1O_poMR200sjU=ttRvGaeQRkC1ZfXC0Ok4uQxdq3K=NQ@mail.gmail.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>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/hg1nLQkvMy2GuSsR_A40wf9raKI
Cc: v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
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 04:13:00 -0000

>>> not really.  my point is that it has been proven to be unsafe to assume
>>> that any network will be forever isolated.
>>
>> I really think we're agreeing. The only safe assumption is
>> that a "forever isolated" network will be connected at some
>> time in the future. Even if it only happens one time in a
>> hundred, we have to assume it.
> 
> OK, we agree that "forever isolated" just means "will be connected in the
> future". But if we agree on that, then we must accept that "forever
> isolated" is no different from "temporarily isolated". Therefore:
> 
> 1. There is only one case - "temporarily isolated".
> 2. We should not design for "forever isolated", since it does not
>    exist. 

damn!  houston, we have found a clueon!

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email