IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Comments on presentation of draft-lemon-stub-networks-ps-00

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 02 December 2020 21:20 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A79373A1647 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:20:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.834
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.834 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 SidpxUSOLKb8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:19:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (minerva.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2a01:7e00::3d:b000]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E4F93A1952 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:18:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (cpe788a207f397a-cmbc4dfb96bb50.sdns.net.rogers.com [174.116.121.43]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC4A01F45D; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 21:18:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id C67561A02BA; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 16:18:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dooku (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50631A026C; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 16:18:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: otroan@employees.org
cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Comments on presentation of draft-lemon-stub-networks-ps-00
In-reply-to: <9212C4E6-8EAF-4186-9960-CA395132762C@employees.org>
References: <031d58ccb8af4d38ac204396fcf1b7d1@boeing.com> <AC5C229A-CC9E-4799-81DA-A7001EDB25FE@fugue.com> <9212C4E6-8EAF-4186-9960-CA395132762C@employees.org>
Comments: In-reply-to otroan@employees.org message dated "Tue, 28 Jul 2020 16:41:08 +0200."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 16:18:23 -0500
Message-ID: <690121.1606943903@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/99Zf-BYX8EBHTka4_UYcBXNsrFw>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 21:20:08 -0000

otroan@employees.org wrote:
    > I would be surprised if you after considering all the requirements, and
    > some of the failure cases of the other solutions, that you will not
    > again end up with HNCP as the solution.  At least from a time to market
    > perspective you would imagine that to be a lot quicker than defining
    > something new.

I think that there are many things that could push one in that direction, but
at the moment, we have nothing to create the demand for HNCP in home routers.

So no fax effect, first mover disadvantage => no reason to invest.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email