Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices-08

Erik Kline <ek@google.com> Tue, 21 July 2015 13:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ek@google.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 886501B2BA6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:24:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.389
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 HZ70E2qzp1Ct for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:24:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x236.google.com (mail-wi0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E18151B29C1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so120688353wib.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:24:31 -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=s9YftuHaiHJBgL6EH414ArRIA8MJsnkx/mAM7HVaQDk=; b=nG6muzsVYflcgOT305hUj6R4jnhbzi+ExxXcsnTXh6IVpE6rRi7bnqzPwcW+HzqDz9 vTX6AivKaPPaSSLZ5v1rUmWodWuuD0ltwwwCBC552+sflnvY2yMQ+6fS+yQ7VdSTZax1 TYYb4Rv2X2K4Xt7rKwguMA0H+x4BjK7DNgZDQ+wG5Yvq+/tTygDIyiIs0wBt9yjPbfX7 OwJ0CPlq9q02GROAJnn9xM9u1l2UTE2kPG+ePo1p7wCAciQ3gNEf+Ov/16pgda78E2Su JEnvKKZgtdGRNe3Z1I3yz6z5u5v8d+btzLDzvNUw0M8oeGvZZvwdpJI9cBuDeHPh04tT VGdA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=s9YftuHaiHJBgL6EH414ArRIA8MJsnkx/mAM7HVaQDk=; b=b6NDqxih6XktRpMXsO6SKymgSO+TtohljZKNMQlwZWkRDy5mMu+n/RFmSa7gELhGsH Jg6CMnaCBLuG/vHGLF2OL/JMFoXhh9lXB/7HTTPgN2/lUgG2tNI/lKmMRAfeWNQCK8iP r6AFlAfhbc55VO76+mrLfxdsqkm7WFw2H+/F9Ve0U+9LwSZ8tHWNQY8WqjMWd9f2Uo1r HODGinADxyDgTQ0MtNV5wZR1vHlSMJCKMbXx6VhWIyWhAsJ7SVnBSYJE9Db74rnyhIPa H2//mS2Wm+MteGKdOutfeubgFv3y0s8M3jC9GO6GgnpRNJcMR2egHZRZLTQmoYF2keUR D0Fg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkTccm9bywzwcbEfVJiI4Swa6ERLIS6ie+dULxqKxW4IojOm0tQvRtojnTG2eXIu1jXTZBt
X-Received: by 10.180.78.136 with SMTP id b8mr30449997wix.89.1437485071660; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:24:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.138.203 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55AE2FD6.4060405@gmail.com>
References: <55AE2FD6.4060405@gmail.com>
From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:24:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAedzxoNFCvRj36OhiqCvPu6h5xRzMcLgr+4yZCNZJf4yejUmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/v8jt3pDhcT7fSoG7WZbWO_6X1vs>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices-08
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 21 Jul 2015 13:24:35 -0000

On 21 July 2015 at 13:41, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> In section 2.1.1.  Choice of Addresses in the Core
>
>> For an enterprise, the use of private address space is
>> reasonable, but the enterprise will need to use NAT44 and/or
>> NPT[RFC6296] on links to the Internet.  If the network has no
>> connection to the Internet, then obviously this is not a problem.
>
> Try
>
> For an enterprise, the use of private address space is reasonable.
> In the case of IPv4 [RFC1918] the enterprise will need to use NAT44.
> In the case of IPv6 ULA addresses [RFC4193], the preferred solution
> is to use private addresses only for internal traffic. Hosts
> requiring external connections should be given normal PA or PI
> addresses as well as ULA addresses. If the network has no connection
> to the Internet, then obviously this is not needed. The
> experimental mechanism Network Prefix Translation [RFC6296] is
> not recommended.

+1