Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Mon, 05 August 2013 22:15 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DF3721F9C20 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 15:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TX0VXO51lDJS for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 15:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22e.google.com (mail-ob0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0331321F9AA8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 15:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id wd6so6692054obb.5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 15:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=ioygnE9ehdYhDdqj9t7HVPc/+kcYlFrm5z2RlB1lwmA=; b=Glg32gDs/XbmJUkTr3DWj7RGHazWqTyKPWijjz8yN1Zo5UymqLmYdXolE7nIY1CZYY EHndlRluoczpfVVqh/vGJtf6C9vTyEtAIyAOXtT5nv/KT43P+0f3vOKBSz38qGnCnsv7 4+vPO+9lrrBLzQMvrOXXhZm6r0ywjesXqFpPYIJG4dTZLtyma7s5FkWXsS6Xxo4JzGA0 6U9uUNiwk/0NanFdu2PwSxsprANtFnlC5BHUHhT4M5GLAQoTC0xz1lknl4tx6wXOtfxt ZQv+E3YIHQC2EXkklphw3ByjWGPBVkPKsOrSXw5+ZzqOQKz6PiZM1IlcKvcm/GoBPC1r Wb+g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=ioygnE9ehdYhDdqj9t7HVPc/+kcYlFrm5z2RlB1lwmA=; b=is/Rpm3MoaIZ3YGy4hcvaSbdfwSUBlQnOS9MLUp5K4dNnA23uoa+A9KIHge4qVUhZn htx4DzyyjX+Sy92XtBWntJ4dzWtZFFpym1M8NFuYFzRUc24mpyDSJa2ppUYY+lrpq3ZU IZkdYMx1QVHQEqy0LQdFfSgrDq4SeaYy3OxoBXB+mMCdJp/ASPC5lMdfGpcr6vq8JESY fObnZvssozzBj6hFHX02oTFAXaTRSFsMUf2EXCII3f9iUbx14Yb0PyEr4TNNGJ9pzaBL 08bbGLOVtF9Pt7nk7fRMRVONavLclR8NHWHBar/ObsCMTQaode7eydO+Rt0WEcZ5+02S emQg==
X-Received: by 10.43.60.139 with SMTP id ws11mr1783041icb.12.1375740925275; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 15:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.228.144 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 15:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B96E2C5@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
References: <201308041800.r74I03pC023049@irp-view13.cisco.com> <3374_1375690984_51FF60E8_3374_427_1_983A1D8DA0DA5F4EB747BF34CBEE5CD15C5041E1E5@PUEXCB1C.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B96E2C5@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 07:15:05 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr13GK_cuvkt2LpJ1qJo2NR8eUnY-xfwMF_zWfe0P1mm9g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51a8946279f8e04e33aa5d8
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnuSrCxcSOhS7+ZvV4vxtXHUHsTWtM8Al9LuHyV6+YTDsNNQ7uj+EFnpnBuwGnRMB6xE7fhnlK42lkAsKRB7HcoU12sMLU0muf+0rrJErQQLr1ueykYLFmIJjc8eSVkJrUoHeN0c9DMhzOKHQbgnbdwsxcgnftzKcvlgW9KLOTXUqr0Z0S5NofC3X9wZae943SH0kT+
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 05 Aug 2013 22:15:26 -0000

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

> I scratch my head a bit on the vehemence that seems to come across in
> discussions of the ULA. I understand that there is a strong distaste for
> NATs, and I share it in the stateful case.


NAT creates problems for applications not only in the stateful case, but in
the stateless case as well, because with NAT the client must be prepared
for a situation where it does not know its own address. This complicates
peer-to-peer networking applications such as video chat.