IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Focused discussion: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Wed, 06 January 2016 00:35 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 01D7F1B2DBC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:35:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 T8LWSkfCy24X for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:35:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com [130.76.32.231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE1661B2DBA for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:35:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id u060Zc3a030504; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:35:38 -0800
Received: from XCH-PHX-409.sw.nos.boeing.com (xch-phx-409.sw.nos.boeing.com [10.57.37.40]) by blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id u060ZYKJ030493 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:35:34 -0800
Received: from XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.4.52]) by XCH-PHX-409.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.9.172]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:35:28 -0800
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Focused discussion: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host
Thread-Index: AQHRR+nwI13RUsgT4kOKL/Th7Sw3uJ7uJ54A//962WA=
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:35:27 +0000
Message-ID: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F9A0EA@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <201601031900.u03J0LMe009763@irp-lnx1.cisco.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F988DB@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <D2B0A71C.1B6D3F%john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F99D14@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <6065AA2A-25BB-4B32-B88B-40A856D0E1EA@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <6065AA2A-25BB-4B32-B88B-40A856D0E1EA@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.247.104.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/vRpVjHOGMROHlUm6du1mU8L38I0>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, John Brzozowski <John_Brzozowski@cable.comcast.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Focused discussion: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host
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: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:35:35 -0000

Hi Fred,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Baker (fred) [mailto:fred@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 4:25 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: John Brzozowski; v6ops@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Focused discussion: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host
> 
> 
> > On Jan 5, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> >
> >> respect the fact that AERO has been around for some time, however, it does
> >> not appear to be widely deployed.
> >
> > That is irrelevant.
> 
> I'm sorry, no, it is relevant. We're not talking about IPv5, IPv7, TUBA, RFC 3053, RFC 5572, ISATAP (which one actually can describe as
> widely deployed or having once been widely deployed) or quite a long list of other technologies.

To be fair, AERO is about IPv6 and DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation - not some
weird new IP protocol version. Likening it to IPv5, IPv7, TUBA, etc. is
therefore inappropriate.

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> In a draft whose primary purpose (BCP) is to ask network administrators to not restrict hosts or host interfaces to a single address,
> discussing a technology that might or might not have promise but is not widely received as a common current practice is at best
> irrelevant.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email