IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Tue, 27 May 2014 13:52 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.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 1B5691A034E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 06:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 VEI5-1K7yhh8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 06:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A8331A014C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 06:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from cupcake.foobar.org ([IPv6:2001:4d68:2002:100::110]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.14.8/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s4RDpuqW032478 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 27 May 2014 14:51:56 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.netability.ie: Host [IPv6:2001:4d68:2002:100::110] claimed to be cupcake.foobar.org
Message-ID: <5384987C.8060405@foobar.org>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 14:51:56 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Wuyts Carl <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.com>, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>, Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.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> <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48D335AAB3D@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com>
In-Reply-To: <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48D335AAB3D@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/sB8BiOyikcFvTG7Bv7QRtiXnzzQ
Cc: v6ops WG <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: Tue, 27 May 2014 13:52:04 -0000

On 27/05/2014 14:35, Wuyts Carl wrote:
> And what's next ?  Stop path MTU discovery support ?  Allow
> Fragmentation again ?  Anything else ?
> If we start mimic IPv4 fully, we're really going the wrong way .... (my
> personal opinion of course)

if you feel that NAT may have drawbacks which makes it a less appropriate
choice than renumbering, then feel free to suggest some wording for the draft.

Ignoring the existence of NAT will not make it go away.  Educating people
on its limitations may lessen its deployment, maybe.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email