IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08

Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net> Thu, 30 March 2017 09:38 UTC

Return-Path: <mark@townsley.net>
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 E532F1294C9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 02:38:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=townsley-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 8G0XbmAmzInK for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 02:38:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x22b.google.com (mail-it0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84F4F129471 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 02:38:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id y18so73066252itc.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 02:38:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=townsley-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=HWf2QcWbZBuKsyIZCdueo1BZBZrhnTZNlN9iVvH5tcE=; b=VSbwJfSPObPV13wyBnSbHv8f9hExdks3xjgxH3x8NGaoHZXazWLE9AB0mTuOcbrccW gARn8WJughBnSMY+O5Udpf8bzt/NTLLji8ffVM4Ssoca5xh7BOZGyzGlFL1v1dMWjv4a Dm56TsenTc9OmkFnIyzpF/KahpT5WF0kYismnUNsZ/C7mU2PBKfC0D9GnNH/b8726z14 TkqBzECTySTKDyyq3rloPd8xv59mM2/g4ATBvTgxJVMuYrUmeJPkKpATd0eSmgCvy2AF WTd8mPO+IBDKjeP9pL3s6p00UOaQlkXDHoY+VcNgtMIGBPzVhlJ3RGpwF8rsHPfBXQ/f VYjg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=HWf2QcWbZBuKsyIZCdueo1BZBZrhnTZNlN9iVvH5tcE=; b=XGg3lrzF+J+46o4LBp3TUNuv968ksMxN289QNF5Sklqd//moeRtVvwXZEh8VrwNOfn xpHSBE4rZsmsCRpGUnagZnFk4c0GiNxwxzpjSqL/7n19OOnUhol2fLBLm2hTaYTDmD63 ybKY3k+bIFrSn/iluDPQKQKYQdIEsAhBZ0M5h4ln6V4w+wyN5A03c69kwZUvLJQM4H7Z 6Jp7YEVN+wChVsH41Fo+XORWBJuiidtyS5cO0KA8DsF332ZY/nz8Fg9nxr8eWgQxr9dV RptqeBshSiSVK9jn9M3YD8sAXiJ0xhaStZpJJfYLTM/CSHMzC3lmTZ8tveoE9E5BH392 E/2g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1guqh2jjwDJ6weyRYNvfoGBBr+LYJqKbZ5MZ1J5f1mVwhtqAakOaoExGQZtZd9UA==
X-Received: by 10.36.65.147 with SMTP id b19mr3335183itd.111.1490866702882; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 02:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.71.6.171] (chsptrs33.c.subnet.rcn.com. [207.229.161.32]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k68sm1100321iod.13.2017.03.30.02.38.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Mar 2017 02:38:21 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08
From: Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (14D27)
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|eed7c9a1e88b01b870b0ed916a75b22ey2Y69n03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|DF41D301-8760-41E9-9ED4-2D28F394C070@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 04:38:20 -0500
Cc: "Leddy, John" <John_Leddy@comcast.com>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.all@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A112F912-A7FC-4682-A043-4430DD578306@townsley.net>
References: <599257D7-532D-4512-929B-D124623EAF35@ericsson.com> <6B662F87-B0E6-4613-B406-8A22CA95DFA5@cisco.com> <4917F161-2EC8-43E0-AF4C-BFAEE44A492C@cable.comcast.com> <DF41D301-8760-41E9-9ED4-2D28F394C070@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|eed7c9a1e88b01b870b0ed916a75b22ey2Y69n03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|DF41D301-8760-41E9-9ED4-2D28F394C070@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/mx5yYoymdo2S2mc2ReKfRceIB00>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:38:25 -0000


> On Mar 30, 2017, at 12:09 AM, Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> Understood, but why do you require direct insertion rather than using encap as per 2460bis?

The same reason we have MAP-T and 464xlat. 

- Mark

> 
> Tim
> 
>> 
>> John Leddy
>> Comcast
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email