IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Tue, 27 May 2014 03:51 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 5716E1A0365 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.029
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.029 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 uuI1V0Gbt_Wz for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22f.google.com (mail-ie0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F067D1A0360 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id y20so8279106ier.20 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=AfKNjg+UQ7yTQSg8EtV1xyEIKjJGuNzVhTWmYwJQc60=; b=Y80Y86cu2yK3I69vX5Yr/BjCpCz5zlEVITkDVoDm16+KbmTVZ5/HX3Ve5sG7JNPKTc MEHx6k53rgciQq82VgYH/RtD4bv3xqODh1uvcSqhzLZyAYr4QYAqppp8hNp/qmBBpAWR DkCD6265DGamGmVBBYEt4hwPVFr67qDDZ2o5Ve8SJgJH/No4EGsG8wKOhknCbvbhr8TU g/C6fcCNPxfF/vPZAuigCvlAaJrCJY4KrSbb71FTwQvEuvOemkosWz6GnrLsxJNhjH4j 3JJmO9s5xm2Mo6eEnd9HH6oZUeKobAxN9WkMUh5qhq/bzS7nWcI6VZjrV0FcuTAwbu2f 2YxQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=AfKNjg+UQ7yTQSg8EtV1xyEIKjJGuNzVhTWmYwJQc60=; b=TBq0nZrAw6Fdftgn/MhWfZZukdQv90Bj9JeYtsc5MMBn/hhh9boED/FSBJ/s+zE3NX w0wFwIL0/Q75oDRSGm4wb6T5XrAC2+Hio8iioXsEVDUPtLSQe5SkT/ANPnP55/KZjA1e H9TB2wLIlJNdZhNxf4aFBmZ8/3AWld7IfAYGMFReYZ5oDeTmc0AalhrUCuIvOgQSJKBy ruye8JSDwyQRR719/AVQ+Z/zaAwdyD2F40T8iqvpLrr1kdaJ64738QQxTckZ40dodF7A +QIWuXWCFXrVudu5z4dbmA9YhO/7zHjdqJrXD1WnbSKHOBpimS45kwgCFyJL1A9dYPHu qPdw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk35B6/GU7ZpX0SDge/govhBTZ2m0Ymt8rIQW/s8dKCAZUG88TNr4R0bWWqQ89qDmay1a7h
X-Received: by 10.50.129.104 with SMTP id nv8mr30387289igb.45.1401162693687; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.18.203 with HTTP; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53840723.8010606@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>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 12:51:13 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr1O_poMR200sjU=ttRvGaeQRkC1ZfXC0Ok4uQxdq3K=NQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b414174a15d4904fa599c1e"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/jfZAhZL1YJdVfdj3_K2ptKE98_Y
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 03:51:38 -0000

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> > 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.

Agreed?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email