IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Mon, 02 June 2014 01:13 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 62B081A0107 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 18:13:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.029
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.029 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, 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 66Kn8sUW1EU1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 18:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x236.google.com (mail-ig0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EF821A00A6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 18:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-f182.google.com with SMTP id uy17so2823345igb.9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 01 Jun 2014 18:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
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=jfWxGJ6MQevQSztXTYAcdb+dVkSlyWICuMGBwhsLOwU=; b=DENjpvG4ZPOFmoumHWQ1aPiG+oUB55zeQ/juT+49adwMQCRXTq5r1JbIixEO2c+VIo p49o/R21f/gEm3J0ZZtPFKDyyIfNZHvps6rQDsfKURuOdV4re4W2ORx+KERdj2vL/ti1 OWTLb9H7Mw51lZBwZStKrho+VXW0uvaHDm+Aq18lVkVKbuXrTrh4x3i88sR90cCWGivg 3blqXWy7006wcEAvSdI8M9WqNB8IBCWB5wNzSS62NiYq+eUHv1KqwI3MPJehj1eC68SV bg98PkT66KznI3Zh3bp5OPzHvgN003b3R4wdaFoJj9XIUsiIf4ZqbrSkiNzlCiPjMhQu xEgw==
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=jfWxGJ6MQevQSztXTYAcdb+dVkSlyWICuMGBwhsLOwU=; b=lQWj4twRrPDiAypBKOpWA6fFMHbkAEtSBOEARRj3x5xIF4OdETui2jP8epgSy8Jubn HQm2TAHK3GySOrPNPWsPqgNIk3M3hRqUjLufauanQIqr9NER0lWzLGbv57zx4hPbPVT5 B+FZAnwjzQnYS3ZbC5pqOWHn5qExtkWta6MgW3a1DUHW9XdyDo4KMgLGDqsHhzZI4wZ+ qj5oMQRI99rsdTBbdgWJyJkqZYy3hQUrCmkaY0P37YMw0IFdbbcuzugofKwTnor6tDGM pRAXr/VcilG+Jiy9RERuwCnseClWvc3SyYS4GHiRuR3xwA336mhNdiWf6jyR3P9MTxig kw+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnGdWM7DmMDUO2mo0iapqszcSc1hGeFXLP+bJj3H8+FAkW31g8mCvDbPrDa9uhvxp9NgT2z
X-Received: by 10.42.85.19 with SMTP id o19mr32515590icl.34.1401671594067; Sun, 01 Jun 2014 18:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.18.203 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 18:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <F12F173B-9FF2-4EF8-B11E-33AEDA24961F@nominum.com>
References: <43BB867C-7BCA-45F6-8ADC-A49B34D6C0DC@nominum.com> <5384937A.90409@foobar.org> <m2iooq4oqi.wl%randy@psg.com> <5385762E.5020901@dougbarton.us> <5385AA97.1050207@fud.no> <53864DCB.5070202@gmail.com> <53865EA2.9000502@fud.no> <02dc01cf7c06$cc6a4bc0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <97390E9C-460F-4D08-AFCE-E4A991E2B0E4@cisco.com> <46D22F62-3528-4B9D-9FCF-C9C7466A9ABA@delong.com> <20140531104145.GQ46558@Space.Net> <m1WqqZ4-0000DqC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <20140531214908.10FEE1719BB4@rock.dv.isc.org> <m1WqrFK-0000BHC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <23125E9D-85A1-49EB-ACE6-DB5EAC67EE02@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr0pvet1oOip-Y2Xi_h2mSZfW1R5HtfiAGbDEns0dY-d2A@mail.gmail.com> <2A4B72CD-EDF3-4D11-AC39-B65892F9173F@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr2NH4Kca4EvhjN2XnDbt8F2eS56ipxu3npH9yOh1bmQaA@mail.gmail.com> <F12F173B-9FF2-4EF8-B11E-33AEDA24961F@nominum.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 10:12:53 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr1cGx7UfxZaEhm7oHA5PLvghVc52oPVkEQF90_7Vm__vw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf30363e8974e67404fad019e1"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/rIza-2kMGS0PW4bkY5ij0tvJnmk
Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] PI [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: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 01:13:22 -0000

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

> > And this problem is specific to IPv6 because...?
>
> IPv4 never claimed to provide ubiquitous support for multihoming.   IPv6
> kind of does.
>

There is no such claim. The only difference between IPv4 and IPv6 with
regard to multihoming is that IPv6 supports more than one IPv6 address on
the same interface, whereas some IPv4 implementations don't.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email