IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPv6] Adoption call for draft-bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 27 March 2024 07:38 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 21E85C14F6A5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 00:38:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wI7QbiVd6HBG for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 00:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12923C14F61E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 00:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dyas.sandelman.ca (60-240-91-174.static.tpgi.com.au [60.240.91.174]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0130E1F448 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:38:25 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: relay.sandelman.ca; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=sandelman.ca header.i=@sandelman.ca header.b="cs1yOe/p"; dkim-atps=neutral
Received: by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D6C4FA1914; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 18:38:21 +1100 (AEDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=dyas; t=1711525101; bh=U1yFotl+aFY98MJpMUW0xfdQA7nZzepcMV55xn0Zkug=; h=From:To:Subject:In-reply-to:References:Date:From; b=cs1yOe/pPiHqCdILuJiTw4MNqge3H7/LoM3YmmDmYCVDrT2wYr6nlWJ7ZwKJRk2Wv lTdIvaVNF/o0Y/6CIX+S2f0uF/8Yzl0jQrpEpoBiZsh6q+heqCaPW1qgTo2oaqtl+e R/ci3L3xvF9fawWOZhU/nV6m8kWL7Fn4owqgrsrE5ejKnzG7UXEgncFKiAVON9qIz4 wsPYcEXZ847qQRAUndayh3cAeJF3Ix4l3NYqnEnaiUiaQKWFmCQdouTa3z2xTUHpaL zzXWcm3GlfVdGJCWinPcJxVOzDpARonnnqUZa2HpDAytl0rmBfXExSwfHx1GDIpiqE 5DzaAJHu1X2Hw==
Received: from dyas (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4BECA190E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 18:38:21 +1100 (AEDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <CAKD1Yr2sLOg-w=Z8vRDOnor+HfUN-gVGXhVUAgT2Ux4NLtLvBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPt1N1mOyG2jrLcK3Gc47_i-XkbVPY=GweTMWNKOK7O00BpaFg@mail.gmail.com> <04BB59E2-D7DD-4409-A5AB-17321FA8E061@employees.org> <CAPt1N1=s9MRr48-ZiQp3FEydj9TWuq9RjTTTcmxOsMxaQNsb7w@mail.gmail.com> <27503357-b53c-4b1f-87a2-918923c439dd@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2sLOg-w=Z8vRDOnor+HfUN-gVGXhVUAgT2Ux4NLtLvBg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> message dated "Wed, 27 Mar 2024 10:34:56 +0900."
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, 27 Mar 2024 18:38:21 +1100
Message-ID: <499076.1711525101@dyas>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/TEfFupEydhvqVga3wnfr7rJwLVI>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] Adoption call for draft-bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 27 Mar 2024 07:38:34 -0000

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
    > different. NAT44 had irresistible pressures behind it in the form of IPv4
    > address exhaustion. IPv6 is in a completely different situation: there is
    > plenty of space and almost half the Internet has deployed end-to-end IPv6
    > already.

Getting IPv6 space to SMEs in a way that allows them the same degree of
durability as for their dual-homed-dual-provider-NAT44 is still a problem.
(Dual-provider, because it's really incompetent operators that are the
problem, not failing equipment, cf:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Rogers_Communications_outage )

You certainly said the same thing in the hallway, and I think at microphones.
This is the next problem for IPv6, right?

So what's the next step here?  I have many ideas, but I don't really know
which one is gonna be the winner.  I think that partly what is motivating Ole.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email