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

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 ;-)

Alan 

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de
Sent: October-29-10 6:50 AM
To: otroan@employees.org; David Allan I
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; brian@innovationslab.net; bob.hinden@gmail.com; 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: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] 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
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------