Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC

Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au> Mon, 05 August 2013 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A32F421F9CCC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 14:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.842
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.842 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.157, BAYES_40=-0.185, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w34T7EX2nctw for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 14:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm2-vm1.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm2-vm1.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [98.139.213.158]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD4C921F9CC3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 14:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [98.139.212.151] by nm2.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Aug 2013 21:49:15 -0000
Received: from [98.139.212.243] by tm8.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Aug 2013 21:49:15 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1052.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Aug 2013 21:49:15 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 349596.37046.bm@omp1052.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 44347 invoked by uid 60001); 5 Aug 2013 21:49:15 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com.au; s=s1024; t=1375739355; bh=EfjI6/pcyCmoJdJHPDzEGkZtAFasREj0o/lYOIUvucg=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=ZVT0PARWthmo0m60kxUIS5jI9gc5F70dGXjA+ZHI9at7W70fOXHGDLnvJ2UHz6kjMjdkqNWBlXzAkL62qIXbg1xyzfHMxuW4EhwhvWWcYuX0wwXJlo9YdFA2e5VLdv5kHvIEVvSjpjZ/OLbvgFaeJQVdXkauENRaH27M87xnOGI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=d8JE89g37003rbCVAAe3qvAfNZQnMtAkUhyHpnmmobQO3ple/PD9E3xI3GWVrNntH8COt9VYpcGmIpL0wqPHwrgo20pffSGnaY2eSqxgCoZfJ1HdtMlVrmN2rB6XSarM8vTgIri9Ggn4Z/M9Q8dq4+i8rVkGWbT9NlMcy9gJfbU=;
X-YMail-OSG: 9zGTou8VM1mypmqkA6J42gjzJO8MiC5.rGxYWj4s7Xc5AcT LtoQdpXiifLZL0rApUdTA4F9jWbm3VX93z3_mrMKkEmofbA4uq9llg.n6.B5 zUcNF_xyrASwK3saC55Q_V3xXzdvbqLHUfs0zXjDet_vn_6o4rY21DwLmEEq Xia_i4gZZNyZqiTYyDnM6Bii2xfUF7eyIW.FqzCwOpBgf3cQSpKUA.r_.kkN cX4zb5Ocoi0MO729jH42rA6QCGBUlVm1cXXJeTrgweqjWFZuKF1AQ_NCrvJ4 CxmS.xqLGRH13R4xJY1ZxxNAsPpnS7mnqGLmcbNZJOqIvn.amO96QiMYyxcE I3exkQdpdVi1GFp9j236mNKHrRbeAfNSPQoXDRwSkmmuHqNYvEj7fgKVajFb yD1Kp0tlzotAB9y_k5BQD1h.L3H36Izub.pJMVCnWZ6j01em2vaCjFu3Nlj1 7oDv6CgMew0jTfxjgRYnTqmbHQ3Pl21eMPniQCPiJ34PoTkJmbVpWRmpg7Bl aukhiz0ccxhwwN20Gc8vIFIZ6K8J6Q60GQCBfgdhjW0LBvTjWSDZmFnWRKaE TUPYbt9wqGuj.gWaW
Received: from [150.101.221.237] by web142505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 14:49:15 PDT
X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001, CgoKCi0tLS0tIE9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UgLS0tLS0KPiBGcm9tOiBNYXJrIFpaWiBTbWl0aCA8bWFya3p6enNtaXRoQHlhaG9vLmNvbS5hdT4KPiBUbzogRnJlZCBCYWtlciAoZnJlZCkgPGZyZWRAY2lzY28uY29tPjsgImNocmlzdGlhbi5qYWNxdWVuZXRAb3JhbmdlLmNvbSIgPGNocmlzdGlhbi5qYWNxdWVuZXRAb3JhbmdlLmNvbT47IExvcmVuem8gQ29saXR0aSA8bG9yZW56b0Bnb29nbGUuY29tPgo.IENjOiAidjZvcHNAaWV0Zi5vcmciIDx2Nm9wc0BpZXRmLm9yZz4KPiBTZW50OiBUdWVzZGF5LCA2IEEBMAEBAQE-
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.152.567
References: <201308041800.r74I03pC023049@irp-view13.cisco.com> <3374_1375690984_51FF60E8_3374_427_1_983A1D8DA0DA5F4EB747BF34CBEE5CD15C5041E1E5@PUEXCB1C.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B96E2C5@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <1375738748.38980.YahooMailNeo@web142501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1375739355.31146.YahooMailNeo@web142505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 14:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
To: "Fred Baker \(fred\)" <fred@cisco.com>, "christian.jacquenet@orange.com" <christian.jacquenet@orange.com>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <1375738748.38980.YahooMailNeo@web142501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
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: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 21:49:21 -0000




----- Original Message -----
> From: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
> To: Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com>om>; "christian.jacquenet@orange.com" <christian.jacquenet@orange.com>om>; Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
> Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013 7:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>>  From: Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com>
>>  To: "christian.jacquenet@orange.com" 
> <christian.jacquenet@orange.com>om>; Lorenzo Colitti 
> <lorenzo@google.com>
>>  Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
>>  Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013 2:37 AM
>>  Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC
>> 
>>  A thought - tell me if this makes sense.
>> 
<snip>
>>  
> 
> I don't really understand it either. The value I see in ULAs is that it is 
> your own local address space, meaning that you're in complete charge of it, 
> unlike the global address space you have been given by somebody else. It seems 
> to me that one way to increase robustness is to reduce external dependencies. 
> Using a local address space, that is used in preference to a global address 
> space when there is a choice, in general should be more robust because you have 
> absolute control over it.
> 

Just to clarify though, I'm not for NAT in any form. I think NPT is a lot better, however I still think that because it hides the external identity of hosts from themselves that it creates constraints that are better to avoid. Through experience, I've come to the view point that global uniqueness of identity (through globally unique addresses) is a property that is nearly as important as global reachability for troubleshooting and security.

Regards,
Mark.