IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 02 June 2014 01:19 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 95B161A0107 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 18:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] 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 FcPKJNo_9VaG for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 18:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56F781A00A6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 18:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6591B1B81BC for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 18:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AC5119005C; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 18:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 18:19:08 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr1cGx7UfxZaEhm7oHA5PLvghVc52oPVkEQF90_7Vm__vw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 21:19:05 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <1FDC3A7F-15EC-4397-AF3E-10F86EA04228@nominum.com>
References: <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> <97390E9C-460F-4D08-AFCE-E4A991E2B0E4@cisco.com> <46D22F62-3528-4B9D-9FCF-C9C7466A9ABA@delong.com> <20140531104145.GQ46558@Space.Net> <m1WqqZ4-0000DqC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <20140531214908.10FEE1719BB4@rock.dv.isc.org> <m1WqrFK-0000BHC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <23125E9D-85A1-49EB-ACE6-DB5EAC67EE02@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr0pvet1oOip-Y2Xi_h2mSZfW1R5HtfiAGbDEns0dY-d2A@mail.gmail.com> <2A4B72CD-EDF3-4D11-AC39-B65892F9173F@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr2NH4Kca4EvhjN2XnDbt8F2eS56ipxu3npH9yOh1bmQaA@mail.gmail.com> <F12F173B-9FF2-4EF8-B11E-33AEDA24961F@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr1cGx7UfxZaEhm7oHA5PLvghVc52oPVkEQF90_7Vm__vw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/tJ4Ij9MF_estzYDNTx9TcfccCrM
Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
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: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 01:19:20 -0000

On Jun 1, 2014, at 9:12 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
> There is no such claim. The only difference between IPv4 and IPv6 with regard to multihoming is that IPv6 supports more than one IPv6 address on the same interface, whereas some IPv4 implementations don't.

I would like multihoming to work, and I'd like it to work without NAT.   If you would like something else, that's okay.  But my impression is that I am not alone in thinking this is a key benefit of IPv6 over IPv4, even if it's still not fully baked (RFC 7157 notwithstanding).

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email