Re: I-D Action: draft-clw-rfc6434-bis-00.txt

Maybe we can mention what transition mechanisms exist and the use cases for
the transition mechanism, but not recommend any?

~Tim

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Speaking for myself, I would think that is a market issue, not a standards
> issue. It would be strange to be requiring 6rd or whatever after IPv4 has
> been shut down. I would rather let markets determine their requirements.
>
> > On Oct 31, 2016, at 8:44 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
> jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tim,
> >
> > Should IPv6 nodes include support for some transition mechanisms? I’ve
> my doubts myself in this case, specially because actual OS have it (minimum
> 6in4, sometimes many others), even some cellular phones (Android and
> Windows) include support for 464XLAT.
> >
> > Same question for IPv6 routers ? Here I will say is a must. What is the
> sense of a router today, not supporting at least a few transition
> mechanisms, in order to facilitate the ISPs that run out of IPv4 addresses
> to keep deploying IPv6 (464XLAT, MAP, …)?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jordi
> >
> >
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de Tim Chown <
> Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
> > Responder a: <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
> > Fecha: lunes, 31 de octubre de 2016, 16:27
> > Para: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
> > Asunto: Re: I-D Action: draft-clw-rfc6434-bis-00.txt
> >
> >    Hi,
> >
> >    As discussed at IETF96, Tim, John and I have posted a (quite rough)
> RFC6434-bis -00 draft.
> >
> >    The body of this -00 text is unchanged from RFC6434, with the
> exception that the author and acknowledgment text has been updated.
> >
> >    We have discussed potential changes, and reviewed 6MAN publications
> since RFC6434 was published.
> >
> >    Rather than editing the RFC6434 text, we have instead added a number
> of “comments" in the new -00 text delimited by
> >
> >    **BIS …blah blah… **
> >
> >    in standalone paragraphs which loosely describe the changes that we
> think could be made, with the idea of getting some initial high level
> feedback and consensus on those potential changes. We will refine the
> “comments" into real changes to the body of the text in a future version,
> assuming we can see that the changes have consensus, or at least no
> objections.
> >
> >    At this stage, what would be useful is review of the appropriateness
> of the “comments”, and suggestions for any further things to be added,
> changed, or removed, if only at a high level at this point, though
> suggested document text is always welcome.
> >
> >    We’ve requested a short slot in Seoul to move the work forward.
> >
> >    Tim
> >
> >> On 31 Oct 2016, at 15:05, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> >>
> >>
> >>       Title           : IPv6 Node Requirements
> >>       Authors         : Tim Chown
> >>                         John Loughney
> >>                         Tim Winters
> >>      Filename        : draft-clw-rfc6434-bis-00.txt
> >>      Pages           : 34
> >>      Date            : 2016-10-31
> >>
> >> Abstract:
> >>  This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes.  It is expected
> >>  that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations.
> >>  Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function
> >>  well and interoperate in a large number of situations and
> >>  deployments.
> >>
> >>  This document obsoletes RFC 6434, and in turn RFC 4294.
> >>
> >>  NB.  This is a first -00 version of the update to RFC 6434.  We have
> >>  not yet edited original text from RFC 6434 apart from the author and
> >>  acknowledgement texts, which carry forward from the older versions.
> >>
> >>  We have indicated intended changes (additions, updates or deletion of
> >>  text at a high level in the sections below with text delimited by
> >>  **BIS ... ** comments, e.g.
> >>
> >>  **BIS Add discussion of the impact of RFC xxxx **
> >>
> >>  **BIS Update reference of RFC 3484 and note new address selection
> >>  implications**
> >>
> >>  etc.  These will become edits in future versions once the substance
> >>  of the changes is agreed.
> >>
> >>
> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-clw-rfc6434-bis/
> >>
> >> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clw-rfc6434-bis-00
> >>
> >>
> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> >>
> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> I-D-Announce mailing list
> >> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> >> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> >> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> >
> >    --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >    IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >    ipv6@ietf.org
> >    Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> >    --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > **********************************************
> > IPv4 is over
> > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> > http://www.consulintel.es
> > The IPv6 Company
> >
> > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

-- 

Now offering testing for SDN applications and controllers in our SDN switch
test bed. Learn more today http://bit.ly/SDN_IOLPR