IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] PI [ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks]

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Tue, 24 June 2014 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <gert@Space.Net>
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 3F69F1A03B4 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:46:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] 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 6VpqGIhV1NrX for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mobil.space.net (mobil.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:81::67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 831901A03A9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF52460A8F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:46:38 +0200 (CEST)
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
Received: from moebius3.space.net (moebius3.Space.Net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::250]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F94D602AA for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:46:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (qmail 72154 invoked by uid 1007); 24 Jun 2014 21:46:38 +0200
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:46:38 +0200
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <20140624194638.GZ46558@Space.Net>
References: <CAKD1Yr2NH4Kca4EvhjN2XnDbt8F2eS56ipxu3npH9yOh1bmQaA@mail.gmail.com> <F12F173B-9FF2-4EF8-B11E-33AEDA24961F@nominum.com> <20140602013829.875B917236AC@rock.dv.isc.org> <53A843C9.1040002@gmail.com> <70F894D7-8701-420F-B16F-F8EAF3AE276F@nominum.com> <53A94E88.6070101@foobar.org> <8E5FC7CC-454E-437F-A85B-69366BC5D7B5@nominum.com> <53A989D8.2080704@foobar.org> <BA6D229B-0645-42CB-BC29-DB467EB697A7@nominum.com> <53A9C84A.8020304@foobar.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <53A9C84A.8020304@foobar.org>
X-NCC-RegID: de.space
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/xqtD2UvW9b5TZLmty8sQLWFuZKQ
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] PI [ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks]
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 24 Jun 2014 19:46:52 -0000

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 07:49:46PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> indeed because it's not necessary.  People who need reliable multihoming
> for either ipv4 or ipv6 will acquire an address assignment or allocation
> and will use that.  It just works, and the people who do it don't much mind
> the small amount of global blood-letting it causes.

Mainly because some people keep repeating that BGP+PI is the only available
option.  Like, religiously.  You're not *that* old yet.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email