[lisp] Mostly pointless argument about V6 transition
Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Mon, 21 September 2009 22:12 UTC
Return-Path: <hartmans@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D8FD3A6978 for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.33
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.33 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.065, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0bINJuxICZth for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.178]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4392C3A6879 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id A09D9413B; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:13:54 -0400 (EDT)
To: David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net>
References: <20090919171820.746426BE628@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4AB5AA3C.5090805@firstpr.com.au> <C0ACCB7B60E6F14B9AC46D742C1009A15D0AAD@xmb-sjc-213.amer.cisco.com> <tsl8wg8cgmx.fsf@mit.edu> <20090921204855.GA7205@1-4-5.net> <tslskegat2z.fsf@mit.edu> <20090921214312.GA8975@1-4-5.net>
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:13:54 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20090921214312.GA8975@1-4-5.net> (David Meyer's message of "Mon\, 21 Sep 2009 14\:43\:12 -0700")
Message-ID: <tsl8wg8aqu5.fsf_-_@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: lisp@ietf.org, Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>, Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: [lisp] Mostly pointless argument about V6 transition
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:12:55 -0000
>>>>> "David" == David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net> writes: David> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 05:25:24PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: >> >>>>> "David" == David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net> writes: >> David> Understand that you are speaking as an individual; however, David> are you stating your points above are reqired either by the David> IETF and/or by the WG? That is, are you Experimental RFCs David> should not be developed when there are other solutions in David> the same general space? >> >> We have a fairly specific charter for why we're developing >> LISP. I don't think easing IPv6 transition is part of it. David> Ok, fair enough. However easing v6 transition was just David> used as an example. Right. And I was basically saying I didn't think it was a good example for why PETRs would be deployed in the right places. I was not in that message commenting on whether I think PETRs are a good idea for interworking. In a later message I commented that I don't know if they are a good idea because I don't understand the security or deployment issues. [We both agree interworking is in the charter.] David> That stipulated, note that the title of the David> Interworking Draft is "Interworking LISP with IPv4 and David> IPv6". Hmm, I've always read that draft to be about how LISP works with non-lisp sites on both V4 and V6 networks. I have not read that draft to be about how LISP is used as a cross-protocol transition mechanism. I agree that some of the mechanisms described in the interworking draft do make it easier for LISP to be used as a cross-protocol mechanism. I just re-read the abstract of that draft and as far as I can tell it supports my reading of the purpose of the draft. So, I'm quite happy with the scope of the draft and the charter. >> I prefer that when we do work on a problem that we try and >> think about v6 transition. David> Please clarify. I couldn't parse that in the context David> of the rest of your note. I do below; here's an example where I think thinking about V6 transition is good: >> So, if we do PETRs, we should make them friendly to transition. David> Of course, I think everyone wants that. OK, so we're on the same page here. That's the sort of issue I'm talking about when I say when we do our work we should think about transition. >> However, since we're not in the transition business, we >> shouldn't do PETRs simply for transition. Restating: If the only reason to create PETRs were that we needed to do so in order to make LISP a better mechanism for v6 transition, then I don't think we should do so. Note that no one is claiming PETRs are only for transition. More to the point, I think if your example about why PETRs will be deployed is only about transition, then I personally believe that we should work on better deployment examples. David> Again, you've just asserted something that is neither David> supported by the charter or any consensus call that I know David> of. Yes. It's true. Remember that I said I was stating my own individual opinion--as an individual contributor *not* as a chair. The IETF is kind of frustrating, but so far, it has not yet driven me to a point where I have enough internal disunity that I need to make consensus calls inside my own head before deciding what I think.:-) In all seriousness, I think in some of the cases where you claim I made assertions, I did provide enough support that I think I contributed to the discussion. I did not provide enough support to make any comment as a chair; nor did I intend to. This has all been blown way out of proportion though: I was trying to say that I wish Darrel would focus on giving deployment examples related to interworking. Sorry it turned into such a mess.
- [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Rou… Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Robin Whittle
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Robin Whittle
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Sam Hartman
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Robin Whittle
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Sam Hartman
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Sam Hartman
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… David Meyer
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Sam Hartman
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Sam Hartman
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… David Meyer
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Sam Hartman
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… David Meyer
- [lisp] Mostly pointless argument about V6 transit… Sam Hartman
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Sam Hartman
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Jari Arkko
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
- [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Rou… Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Michael Menth
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Michael Menth
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Darrel Lewis (darlewis)