IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations-02.txt

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Fri, 21 February 2014 09:19 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 B34801A04FF for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 01:19:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.539
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=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 7Vb09sKrg-WC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 01:19:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [192.159.10.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 046CD1A04F8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 01:19:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [50.95.222.92] ([50.95.222.92]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id s1L9EVDV027694 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 21 Feb 2014 01:15:08 -0800
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 owen.delong.com s1L9EVDV027694
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1392974116; bh=SQhye6k1ha/htX1PoHrEZGOuP0E=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=sSbkZqVj4MJkktibjhySJ/kxCHEd3oUqKIM0T44iCWN8QG1WHso5HGx5bixzbHwNr u2/7VIy5bs/Y3A40IhpSn/5/MLprXfGi+vuV2MjKI06GZJFHELgWMIEdwD1X2EFGv6 mG9Eg4+NYwS3KJO3UCemRsDz3326wkypSDpQG6qk=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <53055FF3.2040605@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 01:14:21 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <57950400-DF71-4D36-BEEC-C8C2CC7D3D54@delong.com>
References: <20140214091302.13219.20624.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <m21tz6javn.wl%randy@psg.com> <1442fd6c81e.5859224653900445752.5189762259388794287@internetdraft.org> <52FEBE28.1010006@gmail.com> <8E2A8B56-6F05-4F09-BE7E-651B9CA42458@delong.com> <5300CE32.1050808@gmail.com> <BD473E46-E382-44E6-B474-A56D074318FA@delong.com> <530104B3.3070205@gmail.com> <53010E70.5000401@gmail.com> <20140217110013.GA31822@mushkin> <62FF9B8A-2F21-4FDD-B1D2-82B8C02A21B3@delong.com> <37638184-17C6-4C8B-86B1-C596A5A5504A@nominum.com> <530242C3.4070108@bogus.com> <E91E49CA-7BA6-4DA3-B4F3-46BB0F25F8F1@delong.com> <5303CD3E.1010907@gmail.com> <m2a9dnr4vk.wl%randy@psg.com> <5304BAAF.60608@gmail.com> <53052B43.2070904@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2fyZ9FezX5dh=P-PiruiOqKBKO9f5hroD-CHDJS+ZMQQ@mail.gmail.com> <53055FF3.2040605@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0rc1 (owen.delong.com [192.159.10.2]); Fri, 21 Feb 2014 01:15:16 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/rknqity6T4OFfGfiPWT5Rj6RfTM
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations-02.txt
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, 21 Feb 2014 09:19:20 -0000

>> You assume that people will actually follow the rules instead of saying
>> "let's just do this like IPv4, and use NAT at the border".
> 
> If CERs do the right thing the ULA prefix will be generated
> correctly. But you're right, there will be a generation of
> old-time IPv4 operators who will do exactly that whatever we
> put in RFCs.

That doesn’t make giving them an RFC which tacitly allows or recommends these actions a good thing.

Owen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email