Re: [Idr] Progressing draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis -- implementation reports?

Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at> Wed, 27 June 2018 10:45 UTC

Return-Path: <c@tix.at>
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 AD737130F61; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 03:45:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <eqjofE8F3HLK>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Non-encoded 8-bit data (char E2 hex): X-Spam-Report: ...ed since then. From today\342\200\231s point of vi[...]
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eqjofE8F3HLK; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 03:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hated.at (mail.hated.at [IPv6:2001:858:2:8::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19D4F130EC0; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 03:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2a01:190:1702:0:e139:8312:8e:e12d] by mail.hated.at with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <c@tix.at>) id 1fY7bN-0007vd-72; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 12:23:05 +0200
From: Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at>
Message-Id: <107615B6-9EC0-41B2-AC65-9742ABE4AAAE@tix.at>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_92A04855-4ACE-4B30-A0EA-E09936D4BDAB"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.4 \(3445.8.2\))
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 12:45:19 +0200
In-Reply-To: <E7CF6701-05B6-418E-932A-9A1C40D552E0@ryburn.org>
Cc: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
To: Justin Ryburn <justin@ryburn.org>
References: <289A4A15-675C-4C56-810D-B5809434A669@juniper.net> <7868BEF8-7B24-43BD-B36A-6C621D17D14A@pfrc.org> <C72DE5DD-3455-4787-A847-B8D29126ADA4@juniper.net> <E7CF6701-05B6-418E-932A-9A1C40D552E0@ryburn.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.8.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/LPMy-1uiULRVBcYDpjfjEhQsgaY>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Progressing draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis -- implementation reports?
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 10:45:36 -0000

Hi,

I actually brought up the discussion of merging the ipv6 draft into the 5575bis and Sue did a poll on IDR about a year ago. Based on this decision was made *NOT* to merge these two drafts and proceed with 5575bis without ipv6. I think non of the prerequisites that lead to that decision have changed since then. From today’s point of view I fully support what John and Justin already pointed out.

As a bis-draft our main scope was to clarify things and increase interoperability. It was 1) mostly writing down what was already implemented by a majority of the larger vendors, but not clearly defined (or even wrong) in the RFC5575. 2) Defining the behaviour in case of contradicting actions and future extensions.

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Loibl
c@tix.at | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | http://www.nextlayer.at



> On 26.06.2018, at 19:54, Justin Ryburn <justin@ryburn.org> wrote:
> 
> I would tend to agree with John here. The clarification 5575bis brings is much needed. I would like to see the WG proceed with approvals and not hold it up for the IPv6 work. That are important as well but seem out of scope for this draft.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.
> 
> -Justin