IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com> Tue, 18 February 2014 03:16 UTC

Return-Path: <leo.liubing@huawei.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 C791A1A0314 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:16:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 DHeO7rCRM-fy for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:16:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 293061A030F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:16:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BBF78652; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 03:16:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 03:16:41 +0000
Received: from NKGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.33) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 03:16:49 +0000
Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.72]) by nkgeml402-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.33]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:16:45 +0800
From: "Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations-02.txt
Thread-Index: AQHPKWgMo43RzbooVkmZSkAdeWvl75qz/igAgAD96wCAAR80gIAEMQZw
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 03:16:44 +0000
Message-ID: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8357DD@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <20140214091302.13219.20624.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <m21tz6javn.wl%randy@psg.com> <1442fd6c81e.5859224653900445752.5189762259388794287@internetdraft.org> <52FEBE28.1010006@gmail.com> <8E2A8B56-6F05-4F09-BE7E-651B9CA42458@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <8E2A8B56-6F05-4F09-BE7E-651B9CA42458@delong.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.132]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/yWWmreGisYaXfcozPQUMXuMSyEU
Cc: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations-02.txt
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, 18 Feb 2014 03:17:00 -0000

Hi Owen,

Thanks for your suggestion.

> Indeed, the situations where ULA usage is detrimental vastly outnumbers
> those where it is actually beneficial.
> 
> If we're going to move something like this forward, that really should be
> made clear.

[Bing] The main content of the draft is: 
- provide neutral pros/cons analysis and operational considerations for the ULA usage cases. (I think the cons and some operational considerations could cover what you meant "detrimental")
- eliminate the misunderstanding of ULA=1918 and recommend some use cases that we thought ULAs could be mostly beneficial (that's the main goal of this draft)

Best regards,
Bing
 
> Owen
> 
> On Feb 14, 2014, at 17:08 , Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Well, there have always been some people against the existence of
> > ULAs, but we did reach rough consensus to define them, since other
> > people see value in them, for reasons that have been aired many times.
> > So writing words about the best way to use them if you want to use
> > them seems right to me.
> >
> >    Brian
> >
> > On 14/02/2014 23:00, ek wrote:
> >> +1
> >>
> >> ---- On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:34:36 +0900 Randy
> >> Bush&lt;randy@psg.com&gt; wrote ----
> >>
> >>
> >> i expected this to be a short draft. "Don't"
> >>
> >> randy
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> v6ops mailing list
> >> v6ops@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> v6ops mailing list
> >> v6ops@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > v6ops mailing list
> > v6ops@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email