IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com> Tue, 27 May 2014 03:25 UTC

Return-Path: <leo.liubing@huawei.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 2049B1A0343 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.852
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 632PPjXDXByn for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEF311A01C8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BHG64353; Tue, 27 May 2014 03:25:33 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 27 May 2014 04:25:05 +0100
Received: from NKGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.33) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 27 May 2014 04:25:32 +0100
Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.207]) by nkgeml402-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.33]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 27 May 2014 11:25:24 +0800
From: "Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks
Thread-Index: Ac943yf4qhJ96dkPR9CtEDOlyHC2QQAMeJCAAAEGaQAAABxQAAAQ4U9Q
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 03:25:24 +0000
Message-ID: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6DB6@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6B9A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m261ks7xww.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840070.90801@gmail.com> <m2y4xn7wep.wl%randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2y4xn7wep.wl%randy@psg.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.132]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ttHbKt8SNCdhJkAREj-6JgTeXuA
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 03:25:39 -0000

Hi Randy,

> > In fact, I should have said: If it's forever isolated, a ULA would be
> > appropriate (and fail-safe if it does, in reality, get connected to an
> > ISP or another "isolated" network).
> 
> not really.  my point is that it has been proven to be unsafe to assume that
> any network will be forever isolated.
[Bing] Whatever it is *forever* or not, during the period when it is isolated, ULAs are reasonable choice. Only if the operational burden of adding a global prefix and ensuring the RFC6724 address selection would be not acceptable when the network connects globally in the future, there might be problem of using ULAs.

Regards,
Bing

> randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email