IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-10

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Thu, 04 May 2017 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4411F129B7D; Thu, 4 May 2017 13:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.123
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.123 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 6Xb2V-QBQziv; Thu, 4 May 2017 13:20:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A956129B6D; Thu, 4 May 2017 13:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1200; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1493929224; x=1495138824; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=tqZE1nb4XPYXe7meInpUz/mtHUQZzIP6Z51jilHYCvc=; b=EEV3nHduVHb/CPJKkrU7oevohpEUZbMoFBV/VH3cwtEHMI8FyLYfhvix Je91jaYiAowgfeJZahsZ8SeUVHRsBUAIKOb2hV+oBY/aUxIsbyjn4KTxf BCiruhwZKECi75Bwk7A9IwrXMkXxdwzYijuE9dx5y7whqCbwGubGEjlDB U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BSAQDAiwtZ/5tdJa1cGgEBAQECAQEBAQgBAQEBg1WBbgeDYYoYkVaIIo1Ngg+GJAIahDM/GAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRYBBAEjEUUFCwIBBgIaAiYCAgIfERUQAgQBDQUbiW0DDQiTbZ1hgiaHLA2DLgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR2BC4VUgV4rgnCCVIIPgwYugjEBBJZdhk07AY5DhFGRZ4siiRIBHziBCm8VWAGGX3aHdIENAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,289,1491264000"; d="scan'208";a="230972077"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 May 2017 20:20:23 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (xch-rcd-002.cisco.com [173.37.102.12]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v44KKNQ2007049 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 4 May 2017 20:20:23 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) by XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (173.37.102.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 4 May 2017 15:20:22 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 4 May 2017 15:20:23 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
CC: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-10
Thread-Topic: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-10
Thread-Index: AQHSw2U/QCNPBxU/5UGUwuQ3s2zt9KHksa8A
Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 20:20:23 +0000
Message-ID: <3E209B45-90CE-4EEB-9D2B-E14EFE28DCE0@cisco.com>
References: <149374426742.21414.16408814015665498739@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <149374426742.21414.16408814015665498739@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1f.0.170216
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <12F4954EB767504EBAE4A46677536D83@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/vhcHPTtMIqRbRj3mHmPp_7BMuoQ>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 04 May 2017 20:20:26 -0000

On 5/2/17, 12:57 PM, "Stewart Bryant" <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:

Stewart:

Hi!  How are you?

Thanks for the detailed review!

> A significant part of the justification seems to evolve around the
> inability of MPLS to function in an IPv6 only network.

It seems to me that this statement summarizes many of the concerns you listed as Major in the review.  I can see why it seems like the justification is: “because MPLS doesn’t work, then we have to do IPv6.” – but I think that even if a complete solution exists (for an MPLS deployment on an IPv6-only network), some operators would still make the design choice of preferring an IPv6-only deployment.

I think that it would be good for the authors to refocus the justification away from “because X doesn’t work”.  Would that address this part of your concerns?

Thanks!

Alvaro.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email