IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Fri, 30 May 2014 23:44 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 DAD241A0450 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 May 2014 16:44:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 cXFVdpOUX0IK for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 May 2014 16:44:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FE071A0274 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2014 16:44:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1371; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1401493446; x=1402703046; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=p/JB/ZcwGOwGAQYHs5AjYFjU18TbRdvVl8bbriDF9cc=; b=F9bdJ0P6/NtpUE/Mcl3wrCa7kZLQX83BaJr+EbwPI+Sowgi+6kfYvT5l juui/qe6pC2YWWHkCfZ3F4Q9yBhe1RCrDD/8l94VpGd/8SLJS+XTKBMnT KkQ2+OdtLjTf9ryPnYTMiarywTVMQ4bPyjCVAbAGZgnxlV5uEbQ0Ccspr c=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag4FAFoXiVOtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABZgweBKsI/AYEKFnSCJQEBAQMBeQULAgEIRjIlAgQOBQ6ILAjXHheOUgeDK4EVBJFSgTqGcpMtgziCLw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.98,944,1392163200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="329337631"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 May 2014 23:44:05 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com [173.36.12.83]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s4UNi5o2028938 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 30 May 2014 23:44:05 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.239]) by xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com ([173.36.12.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 30 May 2014 18:44:05 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] PI [ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks]
Thread-Index: AQHPfGEKSRxRKrKQZk6XcUf05QQyOA==
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 23:44:04 +0000
Message-ID: <97390E9C-460F-4D08-AFCE-E4A991E2B0E4@cisco.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> <5385762E.5020901@dougbarton.us> <5385AA97.1050207@fud.no> <53864DCB.5070202@gmail.com> <53865EA2.9000502@fud.no> <02dc01cf7c06$cc6a4bc0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <02dc01cf7c06$cc6a4bc0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.125]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9ADD1C8E-875F-41E4-A913-5FD859268A0D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/rPaJZLlqrfLMUsQc8Nxzs8ZXZz4
Cc: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
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: Fri, 30 May 2014 23:44:12 -0000

On May 30, 2014, at 5:57 AM, t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:

> So, Brian is spot on, and just as the IETF did little about IPv4
> addresses running out until the event loomed large, so I expect history
> to repeat itself with the growth of PI in IPv6.

Which is something we have pointed out for quite some time, and tried to advocate the use of PA prefixes for, but had issues with people saying “why, when PI space is $50/prefix?”

Now, there are multiple problems with PA prefixes, not the least of which is that 8+8/ILNP/whatever has not been adopted, so PA basically moves complexity to the edge network without giving it a way to deal with it.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email