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

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 11/6/15 8:52 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> That's in the NPTv6 RFC already, I think. Because we certainly had this
> whole conversation prior to reaching rough consensus to publish NPTv6
> as Experimental.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6296#section-5

Is quite a  reasonable citation.

It is resonable to suppose that the deployer of nptv6 exposes the cost
associated with the traversal to application developers who in turn
externalize that in small ways (additional complexity, lost opportunity,
actual cost) to the users of the ntpv6 device.

In ipv4 this cost is endogenous due to scarcity.

> Regards
>    Brian
> 
> On 06/11/2015 10:56, Howard, Lee wrote:
>>
>> Would somebody please explain to me exactly what NPT66 breaks?
>> Preferably in a way that could be included in a draft.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lee
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>