IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Thoughts on draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-01

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Wed, 30 April 2014 23:24 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 B35FE1A6F30 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 16:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 aL9hWAd_3Ge8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 16:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E53401A6F2B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 16:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2385; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1398900279; x=1400109879; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=hhcebVcQRRrDxFYQF1/evtOMVf0zGn3O5Et+LNye7Yw=; b=jnqi6w/QR2BrX3GzTADdw70eFDe+j1N4jrWOwGtBKpZUdsSp1LDKfqqu 3dpzq066PIj0NsTcqk1fKzTWDJVoPQE538TMKA8lt9GPf9dtJkWy7IY6t mX/jjtOWMAVgKReY/pfRM2K9OnJBGxW5mizcwdM/8f3zCtL0UZTMGRdru 0=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjAFAPWEYVOtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABZgwaBJsRMgSAWdIIlAQEBAwF5BQsCAQgYLjIlAgQOBQ6IKwjKCxeOUQeDJIEVBIRYA4w+gTiGVpJrgzGCKw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.97,961,1389744000"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="40130217"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Apr 2014 23:24:38 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3UNOcKW026266 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 30 Apr 2014 23:24:39 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.100]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 18:24:38 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Thoughts on draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-01
Thread-Index: AQHPZMtaVdgdN36+3ES57hlLMFfb2w==
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 23:24:38 +0000
Message-ID: <40C41DA9-3513-4BC3-B6C9-7A1EEF98BBC7@cisco.com>
References: <DA7557DA-C003-4FAC-A1C5-2FAD5BD028EC@cisco.com> <CAKD1Yr3JA8jKjfk1BMA4dfMQ8CQ5L5V5txnEmXPLjE=CnOR9VQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3JA8jKjfk1BMA4dfMQ8CQ5L5V5txnEmXPLjE=CnOR9VQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.118]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C4DB38E9-3977-466B-8601-CAABC7B68AC1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/jkiw4yJmLQOjA1V_infI6o9405M
Cc: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>, "Byrne, Cameron" <Cameron.Byrne@t-mobile.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Thoughts on draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-01
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: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 23:24:46 -0000

On Apr 30, 2014, at 3:56 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
> >    To avoid conflicts with any other network that may communicate with
> >    the CLAT, a locally unique address must be assigned.
> 
> Dumb question. Is there a reason to not use 169.254.0.0/16?
> 
> Yes. 169.254.0.0/16 is link-local, which implies no off-link connectivity and no Internet connectivity. If your only IPv4 address is in that range, applications might well assume that there is no off-link connectivity.

Ask me someday what thoughts go through my mind about applications making inferences from network layer addresses. Hey, 192.168.0.0/16 is for networks that don’t connect to the Internet. You want proof? From RFC 1918, the motivation is

   With the proliferation of TCP/IP technology worldwide, including
   outside the Internet itself, an increasing number of non-connected
   enterprises use this technology and its addressing capabilities for
   sole intra-enterprise communications, without any intention to ever
   directly connect to other enterprises or the Internet itself.

And, in the past two weeks, I have received 471 emails (this particular one on perpass@ietf.org) that contain lines like

Received: from <name> ([169.254.2.21]) by
 <name>  ([169.254.2.21]) with mapi id
 15.00.0929.001; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 19:08:41 +0000

But anyway...

and 192.0.0.0/29 is...?

I’m not sure I’m up to rocking boats here. It just seems like they have equivalent characteristics. Before we ship the document somewhere, it seems like a reasonable question.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email