IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Tue, 27 May 2014 08:50 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.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 1712D1A002F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 01:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.641
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.641 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=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 zGDflKBJxnkM for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 01:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 684DF1A002D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 01:50:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2620::930:0:225:ff:fe44:af17] ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:225:ff:fe44:af17]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id s4R8jiN0005262 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 27 May 2014 01:45:44 -0700
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 owen.delong.com s4R8jiN0005262
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1401180345; bh=jThOJuDCtQN35nSF6e0wQ+47/d0=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Message-Id:References:To; b=yj/309dS/UwP1d2BhZHOJqAme1DpOemK1NshwHm+FRTYjaoiV0mGQMpJwd8Suyhh8 oslTNu2Y0Jsp6PvfdLxnpu6Nv1+LyOoAKRv9quARj6MabpTuRMaYIEtUIV9m7Xb6gM d+7rfq/dtQqntb+TzrbUNd3xWPDsMKLx75aXgLkM=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_52F1EC17-706B-4084-9BAB-7128A5E80CB3"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr04K-n7dcKGsUhU-BsqCKf3+ZkznQV+H+-jV4p8TmSb5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 01:49:07 -0700
Message-Id: <FDF69544-03A1-4978-9C43-82B9E95C31A0@delong.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> <CAKD1Yr1O_poMR200sjU=ttRvGaeQRkC1ZfXC0Ok4uQxdq3K=NQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2mwe37tbn.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr2t3-vxuG=iDi4biBNFpJwuzuHgfpB74i_uydWWRV7qZg@mail.gmail.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6E02@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CAKD1Yr04K-n7dcKGsUhU-BsqCKf3+ZkznQV+H+-jV4p8TmSb5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0rc1 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]); Tue, 27 May 2014 01:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ogSeOQx5_ECYAsAnpjJ1Q1dvjOA
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 08:50:51 -0000

On May 26, 2014, at 10:26 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Liubing (Leo) <leo.liubing@huawei.com> wrote:
>   * If it connects to the global Internet, then need some operation to add a new global prefix and ensure the address selection in the right form. Or just put a NAT.
> 
> 
> Please don't propose NAT as a solution to this.
> NAT imposes substantial additional complexity on many applications, and breaks applications that do not implement that complexity.
> NAT is strongly discouraged by the IAB (RFC 5902 section 4.1).
> NAT provides no advantages compared to using ULA + GUA.

+1

NAT in all its forms, including NPT should be avoided wherever possible.

We certainly should not be endorsing in  in WG output or RFCs.

Owen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email