extending at the edge

Lorenzo Colitti lorenzo at google.com
Thu Oct 11 13:48:57 CEST 2012

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote:

> >From a protocol engineering point of view, this makes me want to roll my
> eyes and hit my head off the desk because it's damned stupid.  So what can
> we do in the IETF to issue guidance to stop this sort of thing from
> happening?  Do we have enough guideline documentation in the RFCs / ID
> pipeline at this stage so that we can tell providers "don't do this because
> it's stupid and broken"?

If you believe that the operators will listen to something the IETF says,
then perhaps a brief document that lists the reasons why a) /64 is useful
and b) /128 -> NAT is a bad idea and won't work anyway, might have the best
way forward.

I'm not aware of such a document. Perhaps that's because everybody at the
IETF believes this and therefore does not see the need for it. Perhaps we
do need it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20121011/8f91ae9b/attachment.html 

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list