Re: [lisp] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Fri, 14 September 2018 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82DC4130E3A; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 07:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 cUl6Ko6ileYR; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 07:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu [18.9.25.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3CFB124BE5; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 07:47:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 1209190c-093ff70000002e47-3f-5b9bc9f981e3
Received: from mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.43]) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 39.13.11847.9F9CB9B5; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 10:47:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH-1.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id w8EElJV0032436; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 10:47:19 -0400
Received: from kduck.kaduk.org (24-107-191-124.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.191.124]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id w8EElElK007196 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 14 Sep 2018 10:47:17 -0400
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 09:47:14 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Cc: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20180914144714.GH48265@kduck.kaduk.org>
References: <153667812809.16741.10796738054406466412.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9D08CA59-8AC4-4866-944E-98553C37E547@gmail.com> <9086A458-31C0-4EB2-BC5B-D9CB7B22469E@kuehlewind.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <9086A458-31C0-4EB2-BC5B-D9CB7B22469E@kuehlewind.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrFKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixCmqrfvz5Oxog8WflS1+PetmtGjffY3R YlXrPBaLGX8mMlu8aNvOZjHlrLoDm8fzWWtYPXbOusvusWTJT6YA5igum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSu jI+dd9kLDnFW9B4/wNLAeIm9i5GTQ0LAROLVo20sXYxcHEICi5kkPu2/zwzhbGSU2DP3MCOE c5VJ4tWPMywgLSwCqhItW/4xgthsAioSDd2XmUFsEQENibvvd7ODNDALrGOUWP55IiuIIyyw gFHiy9MpYN28QAvXTHvJCjF2J6NE34cZ7BAJQYmTM5+AFTELqEv8mXcJaCwHkC0tsfwfB0RY XqJ562ywbZwCThLvdhxgA7FFBZQl9vYdYp/AKDgLyaRZSCbNQpg0C8mkBYwsqxhlU3KrdHMT M3OKU5N1i5MT8/JSi3QN9XIzS/RSU0o3MYKjQZJnB+OZN16HGAU4GJV4eDU2z44WYk0sK67M PcQoycGkJMq71QsoxJeUn1KZkVicEV9UmpNafIhRgoNZSYR3feisaCHelMTKqtSifJiUNAeL kjjvWd3J0UIC6YklqdmpqQWpRTBZGQ4OJQnebyeAhgoWpaanVqRl5pQgpJk4OEGG8wAN1wEm DyHe4oLE3OLMdIj8KUZdjj/vp05iFmLJy89LlRLnLQcZJABSlFGaBzcHlMQksvfXvGIUB3pL mPcHSBUPMAHCTXoFtIQJaMnnPTNAlpQkIqSkGhh37njyVy66SrSx5OhDz/vVOxYn9rrL/3+Z OtHzrfdCl23fFV71JWSwvHsvPfvpXpHZc4+xP2EQDD12omSlaekH0/XtHIt03zhlp87cyHSU K/5yPwPHnRmWv5/3zv+/UFg5Vf/j0mmpt9I9gv6bHKhs0NOSZuM/I2eVX3FIpf0Dyy+Tyb4s D28rsRRnJBpqMRcVJwIAwQBoyD0DAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/Eia6r1wceVW7MIOLWfsCRD53b-w>
Subject: Re: [lisp] =?iso-8859-1?q?Mirja_K=FChlewind=27s_Discuss_on_draft-iet?= =?iso-8859-1?q?f-lisp-rfc6833bis-13=3A__=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 14:47:25 -0000

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:44:36PM +0200, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote:
> 
> > Am 11.09.2018 um 20:13 schrieb Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>om>:
> > 
> >> 
> >> Further comments:
> >> 
> >> 1) The example given in 5.5 should probably used IPv6 addresses and use the IP
> >> address space that is reserved for documentation purposes.
> > 
> > I disagree. I think its simpler with IPv4 addresses and shouldn’t matter. We want this complex concept to come across as clear as possible. And I believe IPv6 doesn’t do that. This is not a v4 versus v6 response. It is a notation preference.
> 
> I will let the INT AD to give further guidance, however, general guidance in the iETF is that IPV6 should also be provided in examples to avoid a bias towards IPv4. I disagree that an IPv6 example would be an more complicated than an IPv4 example.

There is an IAB statement that is relevant here
(https://www.iab.org/2016/11/07/iab-statement-on-ipv6/):

[...]
We recommend that all networking standards assume the use of IPv6, and be
written so they do not require IPv4. We recommend that existing standards
be reviewed to ensure they will work with IPv6, and use IPv6 examples.
[...]

-Benjamin