IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> Wed, 28 May 2014 05:37 UTC

Return-Path: <dougb@dougbarton.us>
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 D98061A033E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 22:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.653
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 yS3vD4JyNe1X for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 22:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dougbarton.us (dougbarton.us [208.79.90.218]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07DC41A0330 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 22:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.6] (unknown [99.146.30.218]) by dougbarton.us (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 12E7E22B1D; Wed, 28 May 2014 05:37:53 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dougbarton.us; s=dougbarton.us; t=1401255474; bh=aj7k+amiVb49Ab/+ZQcmO0fls9C0p1mXLODcuWniDdQ=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=lBlXTXCpWXfWDHrEpDVE8j+zvOa5g+u/kiziAL+nM7eYG3M1rQWP8Yy7lsql7zWVC bF6A2zcr7QYzRJ4wtNncZGm8ZDwprB5bmns1ME9/Wu3o7UxGxavayq4aXgARk0tlS5 /vedyYe7d+xI36jXjSAVfW26p8XHg2JZ1N5rSKcI=
Message-ID: <5385762E.5020901@dougbarton.us>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 22:37:50 -0700
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.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> <m2fvjv7q4h.wl%randy@psg.com> <m1WpDcc-0000BMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <43BB867C-7BCA-45F6-8ADC-A49B34D6C0DC@nominum.com> <5384937A.90409@foobar.org> <m2iooq4oqi.wl%randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2iooq4oqi.wl%randy@psg.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.7a1pre
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/qaecheYPnQVfmC6kJJUB7FTGsM4
Cc: V6 Ops List <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: Wed, 28 May 2014 05:37:59 -0000

On 05/27/2014 07:32 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> so, bottom line here is, in its inimitable fashion, the ietf will push
> ULA and get NAT.

Randy,

We have a substantial number of medium-sized enterprises which share the 
following characteristics:

1. They are large enough to have some internal resources that need 
addressing (printers, file servers, maybe a web site or two)

2. They are small enough that PI space and their own ASN are not practical

3. Some of them want to have multiple service providers, either for 
failover or traffic shaping

4. They don't want to have to renumber all of their internal resources 
when they change providers

What's your solution for them?

Doug

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email