IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Sat, 07 November 2015 22:56 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 B64381A21C1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 14:56:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 dCRJ4jeXV0Kv for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 14:56:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BB6B1A21BB for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 14:56:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2199; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1446936984; x=1448146584; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=VcmnOCSEwFC+o+KOjPTV9JLpFpchpXiDmiUCTPAttnY=; b=F+kRuWj5pGfdoV4eptikrnLko8yPxLg3RDc/wzUJ/8aaVX2ZZZ/kmk8b 2J2hLGVZt7UTRYbgi8KeAbenCAvi99MZRAVTDfJ3z9IbrQZo7aldzgfu7 VhQMHpEMfPq6Ux8r9rPvFsSDtt+KTB/RtLwD2yoJ+FUW39wtNjhVk8D31 E=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 833
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CuAgASgT5W/5xdJa1dgzuBQga+JQ6BYYYQAoEbOBQBAQEBAQEBgQqENgEBBHkQAgEIGC4yJQIEDgUOiCDBGgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQ8JiGSCbogkgRUFlkgBglKBYYhznEQBHwFDhARyhF+BBwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,258,1444694400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="48386680"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2015 22:56:21 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (xch-rtp-013.cisco.com [64.101.220.153]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tA7MuL1H028780 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 7 Nov 2015 22:56:21 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 17:56:20 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Sat, 7 Nov 2015 17:56:20 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?
Thread-Index: AQHRGa+EhFq8vQENcEGKjk9klBS37w==
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2015 22:56:20 +0000
Message-ID: <B2963AE7-F365-4619-95EE-9040320B79CC@cisco.com>
References: <D25D5920.C914E%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <5637FDD0.70300@jvknet.com> <D25E32F1.C9507%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <CAKD1Yr1VvzkSmJo3hu6t_3CUguLN_UkNZjRUqvU_ygPBTyb+8g@mail.gmail.com> <20151103061723.3C7DA3BBB9D8@rock.dv.isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20151103061723.3C7DA3BBB9D8@rock.dv.isc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.70.230.156]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1DA79DED-D7EC-4436-A40C-ECEB4F714D2E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/sL18vGrYZ88bHnBXMTwlSbI2qBs>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 07 Nov 2015 22:56:25 -0000

On Nov 3, 2015, at 3:17 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
> We should also demonstrate that ULA in conjuction with other GUA is not harmful.

</chair>

I think the point that has to be shown is that it *is* harmful. We didn't have to prove link-local, multicast, unicast, 6to4, or any other address non-toxic; what makes ULA special?

On this list, several operators have stated that they use ULAs in addressing things like cable modems and mobile network infrastructure. If the issue with ULA is NAT, those are examples of devices that need no NAT - for the simple reason that they don't speak outside their domains. However, they are indeed local to a network and their prefix SHOULD NOT be advertised to neighboring networks, nor accepted by those networks if inadvertently advertised.

That really doesn't sound very toxic.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email