IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 11 December 2014 03:29 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDAD81A1B5C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:29:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 rUG7y4rXjTSI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:29:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1F911A1B3E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:29:24 -0800 (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 Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 635C4DA0104 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 03:29:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 374DF53E076; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:28:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.20.107] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:28:54 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <54890CD3.2050800@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 22:28:06 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <E828C020-6AAD-45A4-A6C7-5C3BC501278E@nominum.com>
References: <20141201223832.20448.34524.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A4CFF3FB-A9C5-47EA-A1CA-B900CDBF776E@gmail.com> <547F451C.3010507@dcrocker.net> <D0AE1053.7AA8A%Lee@asgard.org> <AF1B977B-75D4-4AF2-B231-300AF2429317@nominum.com> <CAMm+Lwji9860CKaJB_9xi3ztiVUtP3NZ8AgO1wZAVTKVWW76Nw@mail.gmail.com> <CADC+-gR+sFUELOrdfVj5e3hW-KZoftotbhvEwF6aotZvq5wOkw@mail.gmail.com> <1DF3E368-D915-458C-8009-C508735D3C88@nominum.com> <5488FEE0.2030400@gmail.com> <84E9B4C0-A2E2-41BF-955A-1B125BBE63B1@nominum.com> <54890CD3.2050800@gmail.com>
To: Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/zVxeb2hE-au92aPDs1Sl_ip3w6Y
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 03:29:26 -0000

On Dec 10, 2014, at 10:17 PM, Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com> wrote:
> So the expectation is that ISP's will replace your NAT/router with one that meets this specification? Why would they just not replace it with a IPv6 one? I still see no time
> to implement gain if this is the plan.

A+P is available in OpenWRT.   And you aren't listening: I just said that this makes the most sense in a dual stack environment.   Dual stack means IPv4+IPv6.   In an A+P deployment, the expectation is that you get better service over IPv6, but still need some residual support for IPv4, for which A+P is adequate.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email