Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

[Ca By <[e-mail]>]

On Monday, November 2, 2015, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]> wrote:

> My recollection is that we never got around to publishing this document
> because we never managed to agree on what to say in the recommendations. I
> think that because the working group does not actually have consensus on
> what ULAs should be used for.
>
> Generalizing and handwaving a bit, I think that the major disagreement is
> between:
>
>    1. Some proponents of ULAs are suggesting that ULAs (are being | can
>    be | should be) used in similar ways to RFC 1918, including using them
>    behind NPT66 or in the absence of global addresses, and say that the
>    document should list those as use cases.
>    2. A fair number of WG members are vehemently opposed to such uses,
>    and say that WG documents should explicitly call out such practices as
>    harmful. We heard a few of those members at the mike yesterday during the
>    discussion of the design choices draft.
>
> For as long as that disagreement exists, it will be hard to make a
> recommendation, which is likely to make it hard to get consensus on this
> draft. We can go through that disagreement again, but I don't personally
> think the outcome will be any different from the one we had last time
> around.
>
> I happen to be in camp #2 and would be happy to support this draft if it
> said that ULA-only deployments, NPT66 and NAT66 are harmful and should be
> avoided. But I'm sure a fair number of people disagree with me.
>

ULA discussion is the same as the extension header discussion which is the
same as the multi-homing story and dhcpv6.


> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Howard, Lee <[e-mail]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>> wrote:
>
>> I see interest from Victor Kuarsingh, David Farmer, Alexandre Petrescu,
>> and
>> Brian Carpenter. Can I ask each of you to do a review of the current
>> document, and send comments to the mailing list?  That will give the
>> authors
>> and the WG something to work from.
>>
>> Following that, we can discuss whether we need additional discussion at a
>> meeting, or WGLC.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Lee
>>
>>
>> On 11/3/15, 9:20 AM, "Victor Kuarsingh" <[e-mail]
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>> wrote:
>>
>> >WG,
>> >
>> >My input is that we should continue this work.  Given ULAs are already
>> >in use, having a document which outlines those use cases is, in my mind,
>> >operationally beneficial.
>> >
>> >Perhaps we should be more clear that we would not be recommending the
>> >use of ULAs, but keep to a unbiased document which outlines how they
>> >have been used (just a use case discussion).  We can also include
>> >objective technical points as to the pros/cons related to each use case.
>> >
>> >It was also noted in another email (based on WG v6ops discussion
>> >yesterday), that one such valid example was Cable Modem management IPs
>> >assigned ULA based addressing.  This is a valid technical use case.
>> >
>> >I am willing to help if required on this document.
>> >
>> >regards,
>> >
>> >Victor K
>> >
>> >On 2015-11-02 6:17 PM, Howard, Lee wrote:
>> >> This document hasn¹t had any revisions or discussion in a while.
>> >> Is there anyone interested in working on it?
>> >>
>> >> If we do not hear any interest, we will abandon this draft.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Lee
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ________________________________
>> >>
>> >> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
>> >>proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject
>> >>to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended
>> >>solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed.
>> >>If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby
>> >>notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken
>> >>in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is
>> >>strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this
>> >>E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently
>> >>delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> v6ops mailing list
>> >> [e-mail] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>> >
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
>> proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
>> copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely
>> for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you
>> are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that
>> any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to
>> the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and
>> may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
>> the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of
>> this E-mail and any printout.
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>
>