Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations-02.txt

[Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>]

On Feb 20, 2014, at 5:45 AM, David Farmer <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 2/20/14, 07:15 , Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> On 20/02/2014 01:17, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>>> You assume that people will actually follow the rules instead of saying
>>> "let's just do this like IPv4, and use NAT at the border".
>> 
>> people will not just do this: they will assign everything from fd00::/48
>> and will view NAT as a feature.
> 
> Do we think not talking about ULA will stop people from doing NAT with ULA?
> 
> Get over it.  This draft is necessary, we need to tell people how to properly use ULA.  It is not telling them to do NAT.  I think it should more strongly tell them to NOT do NAT.  However, they are going to do what they are going to do.  But, if we don't tell them what the proper use cases for ULA are, then our silence is consent for them to go ahead and do NAT with ULA.

I don’t think anyone is advocating not talking about ULA… I think some of us just want to make sure that the drawbacks, pitfalls, and problems it creates are explicitly mentioned in the draft rather than painting an optimistic and unrealistically rosy picture.

Owen