IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Wed, 04 November 2015 01:19 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 0E7BC1A8855 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:19:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 E-jf1B6QgIGY for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:19:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yk0-x229.google.com (mail-yk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB4341A884D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:19:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ykek133 with SMTP id k133so47630453yke.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 17:19:18 -0800 (PST)
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=J+PyNKQRIXEKSbtjV/K7hCrdLc3Qr3jMn9WYCRpxedk=; b=do+VQppdp70LfQralt3xeKQTzrDLZDlgTEWuJshqbGrXx5UTC7emlW6Fqj6d9G1kCz YDCL/WzxFsOe8Nkv4UE7Sz0hW2R4Op+eg8kV89gSCTDjCNj3xsd6tnHeF11W0FhJk5K8 /RMZYGAVrs/XgkRA1nrZrsWQI5RfLwXO1IT0SPH9w+BYvoEMt6X34WoFx9qt7Ja41lpL Nk9vIzKrFD6ejgdD2ATF1ttT+eXCOMJXTeipB2YsiTOW/myRH+R4F0NPzdccVcVBd1N0 mbyPKlW2XHnY9bhROrXu2pgdHBDK1eEmOrNQGTkZIabp/+ENWdyijyWJugtHT2pMJz9F 9yKQ==
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=J+PyNKQRIXEKSbtjV/K7hCrdLc3Qr3jMn9WYCRpxedk=; b=MNdcOh2zFygs6MT/RDUJoxn0Xszma/Bqyh/0GYzfsmExckTaTeIw2hWgnnXWxuP+Da 86ZW/rMpliMtDSK39cxeNvfChmQ0aSGNq+m75Fii7YLwiU86x6jcMC2zo5Nk/j9L+/NA jCED7rF4WEPgApRV7iuxSHLyR5rpUcvX++zgvabyi9To4+N1j+lycCvw/CIbn1xFVAbb qEhwANUrQyewyQap5CknCw3VJey4wF5eLy1McJL95xGnJBUdt0uhRxLWCKGh+ukiY3pC IAie+pOzQS/cH0imbsb7w5nqknxz+wAkh9/C06L/gi+hVV8WavrHyJ37YZNjEZMTKnOK IwDQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlg/Xc2gV5oHuN+J4JywN1AA6nqrrT6kf8uMzbxLn6MM1Py6hBZjszh5n1+PNuHZjobgWOT
X-Received: by 10.129.44.3 with SMTP id s3mr23066798yws.141.1446599957915; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 17:19:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.87.197 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:18:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2xen4gCfkJphZYKfjff5ZsEn_jOf5V16OtYOYNw2VKVAA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D25D5920.C914E%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <563733AF.4010509@gmail.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45C231921A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <5637D854.2090203@bogus.com> <5637E84B.5090001@gmail.com> <5637EB69.1080608@umn.edu> <03358859-8078-489E-835D-3B4D324381BE@delong.com> <20151103204237.GJ70452@Space.Net> <CAO42Z2xen4gCfkJphZYKfjff5ZsEn_jOf5V16OtYOYNw2VKVAA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 10:18:58 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr3Qn48eQ1Q4VovCsr_S2+RADRZKzi9qBDoh8G2w6Be+=g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114278dea021be0523accc51"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ldxyLF3Sa548F1FLGntgwr2_TVI>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 04 Nov 2015 01:19:20 -0000

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:

> It'll also discourage IPv6 adoption if they go away.
>
> If people have to pay for IPv6 address space just to use IPv6 they'll
> either steal public IPv6 space to use instead, or stick with IPv4 and
> RFC1918s.
>
I don't think that's a good argument. I think it's more important to
preserve the architecture and end-to-end than to rush "IPv6" adoption by
deploying it the wrong way. If there are reasons we can't use global
addresses everywhere (e.g., the inability to multihome), then we need to
fix those, and I'd rather we accept a slightly lower adoption rate as the
price of doing it right.

IPv6 adoption seems to be growing just fine at the moment. If NAT is what
you want, use IPv4.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email