IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Thu, 12 November 2015 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.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 2D1441B2D49 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 10:30:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.111
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.111 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 MKkX7Q5vxYkj for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 10:30:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [192.159.10.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B48B1B2BF3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 10:30:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from delong-dhcp229.delong.com (delong-dhcp29 [192.159.10.229]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tACITekS020995 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 12 Nov 2015 10:29:41 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20151106.063106.74659839.sthaug@nethelp.no>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 10:29:40 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A57EB2BE-CDDE-4C93-8E3C-19782AABC7EB@delong.com>
References: <CAKD1Yr3Vsn7Ny_xSCr_=sVCHyU+=ZrRh2iQDUPx-5FWdHajv2w@mail.gmail.com> <D2614A6A.CA099%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1511050424410.1055@moonbase.nullrouteit.net> <20151106.063106.74659839.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: sthaug@nethelp.no
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/vDwcMz3i6k4UKNunLpQKtOsLr1Y>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?
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: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 18:30:46 -0000

> On Nov 5, 2015, at 21:31 , sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
> 
>> That makes it sound like IETF is not "endorsing" NPT66, as opposed to 
>> actively recommending that people don't use it. I'm with Lorenzo here -  
>> I would prefer very strong language in the form of "deployment of NPT66 is 
>> concidered harmful" or "we strongly recommend against the use of NPT66".
> 
> Okay, one more operator then. I want to have NPT66 (and ULA) available
> in the toolbox.
> 
> Steinar Haug, AS 2116

A statement that we strongly recommend against the use of it does not take
it out of your toolbox. It just says that it’s a dangerous tool and that when
you use it to drive a nail through your thumb, you can’t say we didn’t warn you.

Owen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email