Re: [Rift] IPv4 vs IPv6

That would be my vote.

AFAIK the protocol supports v4-only, v6-only, and v4-and-v6.

I don’t see a need to put a requirement in the spec that a router must support a specific subset of those options.  That is up to the implementor / operator.

— Bruno

> On Jul 19, 2019, at 4:45 AM, Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> If the consensus is that we should be dropping the sentence completely in the next versions and not specify any RIFT router requirements, I think that's perfectly reasonable as well. 
> 
> --- tony 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 4:39 PM Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:aretana.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
> On July 18, 2019 at 3:50:34 PM, Tony Przygienda (tonysietf@gmail.com <mailto:tonysietf@gmail.com>) wrote:
> 
> [Speaking as a WG member.]
> 
>> Aha ok, what you say is reasonable. I was steered here originally by the fact the even cheapest stuff today <http://airmail.calendar/2019-07-18%2012:00:00%20GMT-3> does v4 and if we have v6 support on the fabric v4 forwarding over v6 nexthops is possible at basically zero config cost and you have a great v4 to v6 migration story. but with the angle you propose I see that writing "SHOULD support v4" would be better assuming silicon will become v6 only over years and v4 will vanish.
>> 
>> We can't write of course "MUST support v6" since that makes the stuff undeployable in foreseable future albeit we all wish the world would have moved on for last 20 years :-}
>> 
>> Other opinions?
> 
> I would go all the way and not make specific support Normative.  Even a “SHOULD support IPv4” could raise a lot of questions.
> 
> My 2c.
> 
> Alvaro.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RIFT mailing list
> RIFT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift