Provider-Aggregated vs Provider-Independent IPv6 addressing
"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Tue, 09 November 2010 00:54 UTC
Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41DE13A6920 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:54:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dOMLKHcVivVa for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:53:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com (stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.96.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B38F3A690E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:53:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (slb-av-01.boeing.com [129.172.13.4]) by stl-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id oA90sJEO023749 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 18:54:20 -0600 (CST)
Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id oA90sJWN010614 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:54:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from XCH-NWHT-07.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-07.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.111]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id oA90sIo3010606 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:54:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.64.97]) by XCH-NWHT-07.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.111]) with mapi; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:54:18 -0800
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 16:54:16 -0800
Subject: Provider-Aggregated vs Provider-Independent IPv6 addressing
Thread-Topic: Provider-Aggregated vs Provider-Independent IPv6 addressing
Thread-Index: Act/lF/CSCo0xD4xTd6Wb1PlWt5iUQAElLoQ
Message-ID: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C59D3ED91@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <20101108022649.BD7E03A694D@core3.amsl.com> <050D54E9-B996-4C70-85DC-5CB9A34D2464@Isode.COM>
In-Reply-To: <050D54E9-B996-4C70-85DC-5CB9A34D2464@Isode.COM>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 00:54:01 -0000
During the IPv6 panel at the plenary last night, representatives of several major service providers discussed their experiences with IPv6. It became clear that many of their experiments involve technologies that delegate Provider-Aggregated (PA) IPv6 prefixes to the customer instead of Provider-Independent (PI) ones. This fact did not seem to be at the forefront of the service providers' use case considerations, and perhaps needs to be brought to a level of awareness in the community. Many years ago, there was an extended debate on this list regarding PA vs. PI. Emotions ran high, and in the end there seemed to be a consensus favoring PI. Have we forgotten about that? Is it time to re-open the debate? Thanks - Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com
- Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment The IESG
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Richard L. Barnes
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Dave CROCKER
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Scott Brim
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Aaron Falk
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Geoff Mulligan
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Barry Leiba
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Henk Uijterwaal
- RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment gregory.cauchie
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Michael Richardson
- RE: BOF Attendance Minimization Bernard Aboba
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Russ Housley
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Pete Resnick
- Re: BOF Attendance Minimization Dave CROCKER
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Spencer Dawkins
- RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Ross Callon
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Kurt Zeilenga
- Provider-Aggregated vs Provider-Independent IPv6 … Templin, Fred L
- Re: Provider-Aggregated vs Provider-Independent I… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Geoff Mulligan
- RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment David Harrington
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Scott Brim
- RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Eric Burger