Re: [Anima] ipv4-only network

"Michael H. Behringer" <michael.h.behringer@gmail.com> Thu, 05 August 2021 11:29 UTC

From: "Michael H. Behringer" <michael.h.behringer@gmail.com>
To: anima@ietf.org
References: <24e8e37e34a34bcf9201e7f7a7478794@huawei.com> <CANMZLAZTMUYwVwuv-WoTwAWFne0cWF8QC+4pFWnbkGc3wWp5YA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7eb89c6c-b72b-27a1-6b9d-11d0f2dfbf0d@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2021 13:29:06 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANMZLAZTMUYwVwuv-WoTwAWFne0cWF8QC+4pFWnbkGc3wWp5YA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/IH2FH3mZ-BHyhPBfUko8KIE-OdE>
Subject: Re: [Anima] ipv4-only network
Precedence: list

To add to that, we had a short but quite intensive debate about whether we need an IPv4 ACP, a few years back, after this document was proposed:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-du-anima-ipv4-acp" rel="nofollow">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-du-anima-ipv4-acp

We came to the conclusion that it makes no sense to propose an IPv4 ACP; the ACP is an entirely new concept, so there was the opinion that there is no need for backwards compatibility with IPv4.

Michael

On 05/08/2021 12:08, Brian Carpenter wrote:

We don't require any IPv6 enablement by the NOC. All we require is standard dual stack on all autonomic devices, which creates link-local addresses. Everything else in the ACP is automatic. Why waste any effort on an IPv4 version? (The operator can do whatever they want in the data plane, of course.)

Regards,
Brian Carpenter
(via tiny screen & keyboard)

On Thu, 5 Aug 2021, 20:01 Liyizhou, <liyizhou@huawei.com> wrote:

Hi,

RFC8994 explained the main reasons that ACP is based on IPv6 addressing are simplicity and scale.

I wonder if there was/is any interest in defining and deploying ACP in IPv4-only network without requiring IPv6 enablement.

For example, as ULA and link-local address schemes are not available in ipv4 networks, whether and how to establish the ACP channel? (RFC3927 defines IPv4 link-local address config, but it is not a full functional substitute of ipv6 link-local address in ipv4 world in my understanding.)

There might be discussions and thoughts in this aspect in earlier days in the community. I would be very appreciated if anyone can point them out.

Thank you,

Yizhou

_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima" rel="noreferrer noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

[Anima] ipv4-only network Liyizhou
Re: [Anima] ipv4-only network Brian Carpenter
Re: [Anima] ipv4-only network Michael H. Behringer
Re: [Anima] ipv4-only network Michael Richardson
Re: [Anima] ipv4-only network Toerless Eckert
Re: [Anima] ipv4-only network Brian E Carpenter