IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] [bess] Suggestion on v4-only/v6-only drafts

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Mon, 14 November 2022 22:35 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 022FCC14F72B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 14:35:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.084
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.084 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LHAFQ0cR1Rul for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 14:35:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x729.google.com (mail-qk1-x729.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::729]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B548C14F726 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 14:35:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x729.google.com with SMTP id g10so8440071qkl.6 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 14:35:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=e0S8g288QZmuLrj5SN0JjWep0U+TVwhfivICmhkoUHw=; b=fx1GCs4IIZ8XXKEKG1yLDivl7EpypGZ3ZcR30Lhv0Ar+RP1yt4EbCY1p+9JYLFPClB J9rhBSSoRrfjGq5hMp2oyU0jn7NXJ5eP8YGFNlTE/6F8ZyircwQX5wmvMGhi2h7U3+J+ u0PZluuWNk33SNXKmkScL6HtQoU4MXf8IMAjMkq2TgeCeNVNlUHZY5o2YUoO5Dps8Asq 1n16I15PEqlszT5mYm8vXkfKwezWO4U1LPUhEM5ymmZifXFm+DP3Ebb/qUxDyMM7wiRd b4ufNwKbO5ddbRsFNgveDu47nAFjrNUUMO/hxewUMrYEIF1Uq20mUbvGbVJbXqtEQIk2 QwRg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=e0S8g288QZmuLrj5SN0JjWep0U+TVwhfivICmhkoUHw=; b=rYLi007iKJ9x1FFrsC4TkJCkFm7ToO5nAOCuzDBziyntWbfoXFPaZjtyW3Rsht4olb rj5iQzmGqxbFg84UQAlXWD1lW4YSkS0v4BMbJ1JxdDyz9wDMzRILdM4A0TmLbnZsNYnI Rxpj2WxOU+W8wuiPrGSIMKncirAlFCEXpyL82CbAJVlTcDBpuqq+4DO7W8HkcKQPdo0w dn0eUeL/PMn+xuynO/kdf0yDk/avLrkrTZsrYFOhIMslqJpzPWFXdeN0TUEURBU+E+++ iR+X1NUf/DfQ+dJ9mW9fb/lRiq5vrtOBQHarlQOPbexQJvT8GK+jPvvT4yk95Px1jJHP SKqQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pl5SgJ984pX8+twLGdt4sHFB0YP1bh7IhhEghx+oPRkypVg4qBe oNjvCQZ1xY0IDkYtPJtcOZXyn2OEB+ZEDzHMJXw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf5/NhgyEkeXHeio/z0ka3pO8Zb2ZcS4kS8avlPvhZ0yhT2fcPjB+0uIYzR/PbLe1JDTt5piS7DBljwrUxcFr4w=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:16d1:b0:6fa:156e:44c0 with SMTP id a17-20020a05620a16d100b006fa156e44c0mr13024672qkn.293.1668465324249; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 14:35:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAH6gdPzcMxor9hZy=+hS5oZPB_onU45-vh-ijm1jD2WPb0y+Gw@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV3bF=J7HDZ1Z3vxiJcLGcxOkXst+S1+1DHkdBQ+VdcbMA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMHMGd=7iBOQd=wUhjUJ3dPfHgY1+sf22AzpadoqCCdMrg@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV2F=-vh2irbz3GR+jr=j09AfxzfquTr8usjyZsYywrK=w@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMHxQts0nkLuUo0vPezawK5F7m0Y1hhuQboQxCty+N4p4g@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV1-7EsS9aX11sAoSFezcDn0w_FNerAYkFTZ9GmDArVyvA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMETJFHaPp-n8unaw9zu51q+n--WL-9EeY-_1taEU3Q8-w@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV2r-n+EBzMS381kvXopFjM=WxcDg7x9eY5JsYxcY4uaHA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEfhRrxaxsbSfi3UWanzo5k0Dg0rwzMfjOjnp_jycr4aNc+8Ow@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV2qc3QOHB3HAcwuQAYO9oU8ZrVXfgq58yat-aEU9OnneQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAEfhRrxV=v5PdvvHRK8ijW-TgKumBZzBT+r6FJ=neQZyScgKeQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV29-Q5ReV3N-1W+H_RZXi-hPfSkgB5gojgywX4qNULwLg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMG3X3ofb=FkoCzSJPCUbcfxBFG1aOupE6_G=dRQd29GLA@mail.gmail.com> <DB8PR07MB62492A04A34494F2E2E874D2A0059@DB8PR07MB6249.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMEgM_Hpigz_dALA1s+Bp7LbDwW4Xws9VUHMg7sWi1Ze8A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMEgM_Hpigz_dALA1s+Bp7LbDwW4Xws9VUHMg7sWi1Ze8A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 17:09:27 -0500
Message-ID: <CABNhwV0PJ=wfERJLop+1tXqswiO94fqn=Jk-ccr2m6R3bpWRfw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>, tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f8d99c05ed75dae4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/HauIBjpjJg-0GSGJuj23XL7kkCk>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [bess] Suggestion on v4-only/v6-only drafts
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 22:35:30 -0000

Robert

Tom is referring to you to seek out v6OPS is more appropriate for your 464
NAT related effort as you described and not 6MAN on the problem statement
as to what you are trying to solve and get feedback.

As Tom mentioned there are a variety of 4AAS solutions if that is what you
are looking for.

This is for you not for me as I believe 4PE belongs in IDR.

I want to make that a clear.

If you desire to start a new effort in v6OPS so be it and that is a
completely different effort than this effort for 4PE.

Tom

I am not trying to put words in your mouth, however you are stating what I
mentioned above as the appropriate WG for 4-6-4 “NAT” related work being
v6OPS.  Correct??

You are not commenting on the 4PE as being not appropriate here in IDR or
are you?

Just wanted to clarify that point.

Thank you

Gyan

On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 11:10 AM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:

> 4-6-4 has received a lot of attention in V6OPS, RFC6877 to name but one of
>> many, and I would see that WG as a better place for a considered response,
>> not that yours is not very well considered, than the 6man WG,
>>
>> Tom Petch
>
>
> Spot on !
>
> RFC6877 is along the lines of what I meant as zero vs N levels of tunnels,
> MPLS free, SR free, LDP free, BGP-LU free  etc ... solution to the problem
> presented.
>
> It is shocking that folks would even think to mix all of the above
> technologies to accomplish simple interworking for 4-6-4 connectivity.
>
> It is even more bizarre that they think their story deserves a standards
> stamp as THE IETF solution.
>
> And why is this all suddenly happening in IDR - no freaking idea ....
>
> Cheers,
> Robert
>
> --

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*



*M 301 502-1347*

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email