RE: Consensus call on adopting <draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-08.txt>

[Alan Kavanagh <[e-mail]>]

Well i guess we clearly dont agree on that.

Alan

________________________________
From: Wojciech Dec [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: October-29-10 10:49 AM
To: Alan Kavanagh
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; David Allan I; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Suresh Krishnan
Subject: Re: Consensus call on adopting <draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-08.txt>



On 29 October 2010 14:09, Alan Kavanagh <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Yes I fully agree Olaf and as David has also noted these N:1 VLAN deployment models exist in a lot of places and are not disappearing. Its also good that we don't force Service Provider with a given set of deployment models to change their network architecture just to endorse IPv6 which is not what SP's want to hear or embrace to roll out IPv6 ;-)

This nicely indicates the disparity between the requirements and the proposed solution, which has been highlighted on numerous occasions: Introducing an IPinIP tunneling protocol and interface between the Access Node and Router clearly changes the network architecture. Based on your statement, deploying IPv6 without this change will not be possible, while it has been amply discussed not to be so for a very broad set of cases.

If the requirement is for a no change to the network architecture, then could you demonstrate how does this solution meet it?

-Woj.


Alan

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Sent: October-29-10 6:50 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; David Allan I
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Suresh Krishnan
Subject: AW: Consensus call on adopting <draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-08.txt>

I appreciate the decision of the WG chairs to accept the I-D as v6ops working item since it reflects the majority of the raised opinions and acknowledges the need for a solution to make IPv6 happen in a very special, but nevertheless often implemented, network scenario.

Kind regards
Olaf


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] Im Auftrag
> von Ole Troan
> Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Oktober 2010 10:33
> An: David Allan I
> Cc: Bob Hinden; Brian Haberman; IPv6 WG Mailing List; Suresh Krishnan
> Betreff: Re: Consensus call on adopting
> <draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-08.txt>
>
> David,
>
> good point indeed.
>
> perhaps it is time for the IETF to acknowledge the fact that these
> link types are common and to take a more architectural and wide
> approach to solving and adapting its protocols to this subnet model.
>
> I'm concerned that we are standardising point solutions without
> understanding the problem. and I disagree with the chairs consensus
> call. (not that I necessarily think there are alternatives, but I'd
> like to see a big warning banner somewhere, not just a "we need to fix
> a few nits before last calling it).
>
> cheers,
> Ole
>
>
> On Oct 28, 2010, at 23:58 , David Allan I wrote:
>
> > A quick comment on the soapbox statement...
> >
> > <soapbox statement>: I'm biased against this subnet model
> (N:1)... recreating PPP functionality over Ethernet, trying to create
> user isolation on a shared IPv6 link, which after all IPv6 protocols
> are not designed for.
> >
> > I appreciate the IETF has been kind of blind to this but
> this kind of asymmetric Ethernet subnet is actually much more
> prevalent and been around longer than you might think. In Metro
> Ethernet Forum terms it is known as an E-TREE, support for which is
> being discussed by the IETF L2VPN WG. IEEE
> 802.1ad(2005?) documents one possible means of implementing this in
> the form of Asymmetric VID (which I think is also known as private
> VLAN) and this has been carried forward into 802.1ah PBB/.1aq SPB.
> >
> > There is also physical media that behaves like this in the
> form of passive optical networks, which are p2p to the root and
> broadcast to the leaves. GPON and EPON becoming a very prevalent
> broadband deployment model....
> >
> > BBF TR101(2006) is simply one instantiation of a useful
> construct that has been around for years...and if anything will become
> much more common over time...
> >
> > Cheers
> > Dave
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------