IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8200 (5933)

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Fri, 13 December 2019 04:03 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 E127B120803 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 20:03:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 oLj8rhgVkpbh for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 20:03:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE0801200F6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 20:03:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.12] (unknown [119.94.167.250]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C62935DF54 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 05:03:21 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8200 (5933)
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <20191211032724.46F77F406F3@rfc-editor.org> <468d4c89-d71f-5c7d-6929-8b1a88000df5@gmail.com> <CALx6S376jNUDDSQnguAAa_qZGQNzt=eQ_pnTH7V6U8d+cFFsTw@mail.gmail.com> <f82bdfbf-1ded-9d3f-2d12-53357324b693@gmail.com> <f74d86bd-ee03-05e6-cc1d-d97cf895173f@si6networks.com> <ff12c1b4-f4e5-3e5e-51e2-937c0ef35d72@gmail.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <ce74b2f8-5ab2-c887-73bf-0ac48feeafac@pi.nu>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 12:03:17 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ff12c1b4-f4e5-3e5e-51e2-937c0ef35d72@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/mb9KOXzK35W9ThMvtSwBkYKTaO0>
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: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 04:03:26 -0000

Brian,

On 13/12/2019 03:32, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> THere's no IETF consensus for limited domains.
> Correct, but they do exist in the real world;-)
> 

Undoubtedly - some years ago we had walled gardens as an example.

However, as long as we don't have a consensus it is hard to standardize
built on this concept.

/Loa

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email