Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion

While true, I would encourage us to not turn this into yet another
referendum on NAT. For the scope of this draft, it's important to note
that its sole purpose is to document the default behavior of ULA,
which in turn highlights the shortcomings in the case of using ULA in
that manner. One of the intended goals is to highlight that ULA is not
a replacement for RFC1918 as many, many of us get that assertion and
question in the first 5 minutes of IPv6 conversations.

On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 11:06 AM Vasilenko Eduard
<vasilenko.eduard=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Connection to 2 Carriers is not possible now in any other way except ULA+NPT.
>
>
>
> From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Clark Gaylord
> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2022 6:29 PM
> To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion
>
>
>
> For most use cases private legacy replacement is global addressing. Wide scale ULA will only encourage NAT66 and similar abominations. The point of IPv6 is to restore the end-to-end principle to the network (and the way we *think*) not perpetuate bad ideas.
>
>
>
> We should absolutely encourage proper use cases for ULA but the VM farm, for example, typically *isn't* it. (Someone recently pointed out the control plane of their mpls fabric -- that's probably a good example.)
>
>
>
> Enterprise network admins got sold a bill of goods by vendors who wanted to keep them ignorant telling them that "NAT = security".
>
>
>
> --ckg
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2022, 11:18 Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> +1.
>
>
>
> 1.
>
> DualStack is for a long time in the Enterprise.
>
> ULA priority below IPv4 makes it useless.
>
> People would be looking for a Private IPv4 replacement.
>
> The absence of the replacement would considerably delay IPv6 adoption in the Enterprise.
>
>
>
> 2.
>
> Not many expect such ULA priority. People are massively misleaded.
>
>
>
> Eduard
>
> From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ed Horley
> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2022 6:02 PM
> To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
> Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion
>
>
>
> I support adoption of the draft
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 08:01 Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> At IETF 114, Nick discussed draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula, which is ongoing in another thread. He asked for the WG to adopt the draft; should we?
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
> --
>
> ed@hexabuild.io - 925-876-6604
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops