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

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 5/1/14, 3:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
> On Apr 30, 2014, at 10:30 PM, joel jaeggli <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/30/14, 7:55 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <[e-mail]
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>   Ask me someday what thoughts go through my mind about applications
>>>   making inferences from network layer addresses.
>>>
>>>
>>> The wording in RFC 3927 is much stronger. For example, it states
>>> multiple times that packets sourced from 169.254/16 MUST NOT be
>>> forwarded, and that they MUST NOT ever be sent to any router for
>>> forwarding. I think it's perfectly reasonable for an app (or even an
>>> OS!) to assume that such addresses have no connectivity.
>>>
>>>
>>>   Hey, 192.168.0.0/16 <http://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.
>>>
>>>
>>> Funny, that's what the proponents of ULA-only networks say too - "no,
>>> this network will NEVER connect to the Internet, ever!!11" I suspect
>>> they do so because they know that saying "we want to use NAT to connect
>>> this network to the Internet like we do in IPv4" is going to result in
>>> strong opinions and removal of support for the use case. But that's
>>> off-topic here.
>>
>> site-local unicast in ipv6  and rfc 1918 are relatively contemporaneous
>> ideas...
>>
>> I don't thing the pressures that produce such solutions are particularly
>> new in fact it's pretty easy to assert that they co-evolved.
> 
> Yes, but unlike RFC-1918, we came to our senses and deprecated site-local.
>
> ULA came later as a result of pressure from people who loved their NAT. Sad, really, that the problem was not addressed through education instead of better RIR policies for global unicast.

fec0::/10 was reserved way back in rfc 1884

3879 and 4193 are contemporaneous activities. meany people on this list
were present for them.

The fact that we did a bad job at something 20 years ago doesn't mean
the problem that we were attempting to address went away.

> Owen
> 
>