IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] We can change the world in a 1000 ways (IPv4 over IPv6)

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 12 November 2013 16:22 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A033A21E8210; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:22:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.583
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 uSY9LV2ugd86; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:22:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og123.obsmtp.com (exprod7og123.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C611921E80AA; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:22:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob123.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUoJVvUczWLR8I5/aFTE2xRU+Oknoog3Y@postini.com; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:22:21 PST
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 659CA1B82D0; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:22:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4581F19005D; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:22:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:22:21 -0800
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Thread-Topic: We can change the world in a 1000 ways (IPv4 over IPv6)
Thread-Index: AQHO35sV1lCZcft8K0C2M4xcE85DdJoiST4AgAAEYwA=
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:22:20 +0000
Message-ID: <C99405BD-C52D-41D8-AC68-2C9A6A036603@nominum.com>
References: <5ABB4DF8-95F0-4B07-8D20-6A00B7631E11@employees.org> <30650.1384272400@sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <30650.1384272400@sandelman.ca>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <2B84F19D5B38F44AB78689F38E1755D0@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Softwires <softwires@ietf.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] We can change the world in a 1000 ways (IPv4 over IPv6)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:22:28 -0000

On Nov 12, 2013, at 11:06 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> It would be nice to convene a summit of operators (at RIPE or NANOG) and 
> describe the various mechanisms and rather than ask them which one they like,
> ask them which one they would *NEVER* consider.  That might reduce the
> field by half...

I don't think that's practical—they might all vote for a protocol that they wind up not wanting to deploy.   The models that are under consideration actually have running code and some operational experience behind them.   So asking operators to decide based on a feature list or something of that sort is not a good idea.   What we really want is for operators who have realistic intentions of deploying this stuff to weigh in.   And they are doing so, in the working group, so we don't really need to go to RIPE or NANOG to get this feedback.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email