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

Lorenzo Colitti <> Mon, 05 August 2013 01:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EC9121E80BC for <>; Sun, 4 Aug 2013 18:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6holMY4XFzpg for <>; Sun, 4 Aug 2013 18:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22f]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2EC221E80BE for <>; Sun, 4 Aug 2013 18:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g12so4903135oah.6 for <>; Sun, 04 Aug 2013 18:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=+vk40YeeLyepA6b0R9YTUFpfT/l1lScEIhyarg6nNls=; b=Xdf3GJTcI9YuZXKNgy1dW7hM0TyUbIcuNfSVNF/cP/+jM8FeFsIULXhcetiph4G2rh PQq/+sXdFKC++g07I4VEHItlu13MTs2felbbJgz0jhK5xQWItfdCNExgeGHOwsq2Glie C11REJfjuX/yXgQqF7oNyodXXAGcR9C9XTg32UTZ9Ns4gN+r/7Ki4uoL+qT/wFBL9ez5 E+/1GF9MkSusMPiXlX3UGauruIP8CQ2eFXSklch4cidaxriR1URp2TRWKl9bthjYsgIY 3EwpQD6i2p1e66t7esknCgZi8KQnFsxyIu9DxBUO2ovmYwmiRXuu8dwU6ovwJTfh+ks+ tfYg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=+vk40YeeLyepA6b0R9YTUFpfT/l1lScEIhyarg6nNls=; b=Ce1O2bpQaNvL3vwZu/EDVZK+aAK+TDgW7QtOlU4Vx3ayY1SJ8Q4WjRpLTzpzbC0sYF CHBfo0EgHvd6rK1kRsON53McV2I+dmXHhvDjTIu5+P54biPyz9KQgp6QZZtCR4pVaDA7 Y/ujlsMQog2ddq0bO0WZzZXj8K5kc9kjmmxjqYr5VH8+U3ZmSVIKS/g1dAlUqRp0Kgiy yuZBzvUyTZuFKHaDnFeGkTDYISY8V8BvnwIbmtsUKBgg5zxKV0hv64ej0DNZsLYrggGu Km0AzFanF+b8RK+rYQwz5BovNpZZWGuKTNi4UsrWfnK8KoE/j2OPAsJx5/KacrYS8UCI ObHg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id s5mr874873igd.6.1375666503830; Sun, 04 Aug 2013 18:35:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 4 Aug 2013 18:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 10:34:43 +0900
Message-ID: <>
To: Fred Baker <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013cc1c44aa9d204e329514f
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQleEcEQ0D84inrHB8tQMfuY7cT3wqb6LHWX3OUtBlXFN+LjYPNpiFYNsl5A9RQ4HR1Ra8xIST2TDwiOv3Vw+r9xSOszxvxqS3DQGfmr/pGUCWxYzwjWIIogya1/P/FOm9kZSwPhg9HCVxSYGQEZQM6Qah9TgSu3/+YmftLRAVbWN6s2vZd1tsuI6JiEvZbQxf0Ylj6k
Cc: " WG" <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 01:35:17 -0000

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:00 AM, Fred Baker <> wrote:

> This is to initiate a two week working group last call of
>  Please read it now. If you find nits
> (spelling errors, minor suggested wording changes, etc), comment to the
> authors; if you find greater issues, such as disagreeing with a
> statement or finding additional issues that need to be addressed,
> please post your comments to the list.

As stated at the mike, I think all mention of ULA+NPT66 should be removed,

   1. AFAIK this is not a scenario that is specified in any RFC, and it is
   not appropriate to introduce it here in passing, since this document is
   only tangential to ULAs.
   2. This working group is also discussing this same question - with a
   fair amount of controversy - in the ULA usage draft. That discussion should
   be held in only one place and should not hold up this document.
   3. There is zero or near-zero experience of this deployment model. The
   authors did not appear to be aware of any deployments that actually used
   this model. Also, RFC6724-compliant hosts will always prefer IPv4 over ULA,
   so they will in effect never use them at all; the fact that this is not
   mentioned in the draft suggests that nobody has actually done this.

If ULAs are to be cited in the draft, then they should be mentioned in the
context of the only scenarios currently specified by the IETF, either in
networks that are completely isolated or in conjunction with global