IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Wed, 04 November 2015 02:47 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 7BE571A8A52 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:47:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 sRwJBfIdCTWN for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:47:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ABDA1A1B13 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:47:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D6DF3493B6; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 02:47:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9FAF16003D; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 02:48:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A76816006B; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 02:48:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 5rMh97H8gOlL; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 02:48:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c122-106-161-187.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [122.106.161.187]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 335D016003D; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 02:48:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DCDE3BC3CBF; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:47:31 +1100 (EST)
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
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> <CAKD1Yr3Qn48eQ1Q4VovCsr_S2+RADRZKzi9qBDoh8G2w6Be+=g@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 04 Nov 2015 10:18:58 +0900." <CAKD1Yr3Qn48eQ1Q4VovCsr_S2+RADRZKzi9qBDoh8G2w6Be+=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 13:47:30 +1100
Message-Id: <20151104024731.0DCDE3BC3CBF@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/oj3uYHDsJp3COCLxmOPpTDipBPg>
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 02:47:37 -0000

In message <CAKD1Yr3Qn48eQ1Q4VovCsr_S2+RADRZKzi9qBDoh8G2w6Be+=g@mail.gmail.com>
, Lorenzo Colitti writes:
> 
> 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.

	ULA + PA is NOT the "wrong way".

	ULA does NOT imply NAT.

	I don't think NAT should be done in IPv6 but that in no way
	indicates that I thing ULA is bad.

	You can misuse PI and NAT that to PA when you can't get your
	ISP to accept the PI.  Do we ban PI because that can happen?

> IPv6 adoption seems to be growing just fine at the moment. If NAT is what
> you want, use IPv4.
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email