IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rift] IPv4 vs IPv6

Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com> Thu, 18 July 2019 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <tonysietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rift@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rift@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79DBF120898 for <rift@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 09:27:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 El_cRh0oTU0p for <rift@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 09:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x530.google.com (mail-ed1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::530]) (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 63548120897 for <rift@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 09:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x530.google.com with SMTP id i11so30931380edq.0 for <rift@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 09:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=HdDTUAh5VWYvg5AULZBVgA9Z13/MG306zX+WP+s7acE=; b=Af9Xzv/9nZXVEfNLbO5NYAfMcWcL8oJ2JY1zD0qteKSD5SZGYZ7c5Rqv6XMfBk5yiY 7pevsjayHRNoulvAuyg7St9M8PXStvEJ3Ft9bnaL1wpSW8VS1SfDI8N7HNZfcSFsSyC3 /O0jsTYySC7Lwi/7w3zg/Ufu6CP3SGZz9EQiNCOTZWYPde2Al1DDDpaaICZpFCXMQMPT T/zhGfGq5qU/GG43XM5tv/r8jN+ZPerZ68lHUcF8a1MrYUJBY6Gwk0P+UXNBQYvAnkLO rROXgx9ZaHp22DCQu9At27DSf4NI4qyGlSpEMSq/2jfBFsS7w8pFu/M8AAEDd4Zuzn/k b7Aw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HdDTUAh5VWYvg5AULZBVgA9Z13/MG306zX+WP+s7acE=; b=fKED+A8kFVpWBqZ2dwjZ1j7AIUz6Ln1b/7WXFl1PPqucme6i//OuzMY651evlbaaY5 dGWOwDN6p0q6gFaIv1FnIISUJ2uwCiwZb8XrrFGeiG1ZvW7jRc8ZpNLz6k2MDvMWeawa Z4oW5zK/5soR9/NDjPSY3Jv51o40hIdX/vyLxA3BJh0Sv2wjCNMYqxpLn3WVfkRAK+IP x2v7BcRURkIstTwlfgsqk+DMvP/bMIZ6+cBaQ/aVHxi183qpnzOIQeiERSLKOdIx87aK LOh5g1JeGcUEn0ie88wQUhM2H8FDj/EGrteWvloK1p9cGI88Y5KG/okOcSmVS5rQbXNY XxPg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWxNhoh7vyyhRXUKdUiRLBt+DZ4atnwwkulCppTm00Ig5/Yf6Lf S8kC9RIfzgbvYvsXj+0jNMwW3rea2oivAoXaG7jDgA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxfB6UvPwF4gfKH5f97iPM241orL1Lz28nj1vPQMuyJbGatVUaM1/V2L7np8NFum3o3RVL3X1er9eDJaV+br3M=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4bcb:: with SMTP id x11mr37033351ejv.1.1563467221995; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 09:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1907180636330.19225@uplift.swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1907180636330.19225@uplift.swm.pp.se>
From: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 12:26:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+wi2hP6K3Or7ynOUzKovxkx8ZtvnTUdKVDvjRcB8=4yjFD6aQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Cc: rift@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000629605058df7141b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/FYBHkshoiNnyev2qFf06IOokEZY>
Subject: Re: [Rift] IPv4 vs IPv6
X-BeenThere: rift@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of Routing in Fat Trees <rift.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rift>, <mailto:rift-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rift/>
List-Post: <mailto:rift@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rift-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift>, <mailto:rift-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 16:27:06 -0000

Please dig out the archive where that discussion was brought up by Alvaro
and follow up there if you still have doubts.

In short: the protocol DOES support v6 and it DOES support v6

every router running RIFT MUST support v4 and MAY support v6. Rationale for
this on the mentioned thread.

--- tony

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:42 AM Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> Reading https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rift-rift-06, I came
> across
> this:
>
> "All RIFT routers MUST support IPv4 forwarding and MAY support IPv6
> forwarding."
>
> Reading the charter on https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/rift/about/ :
>
> "The protocol must support IPv6 and should also support IPv4."
>
> So while I see that technically these two statements aren't in violation
> of each other, it seems the "MAY" for IPv6 in the main architecture
> document seems to violate the spirit of the charter and IPv6 focus in the
> IETF as of the past 5 years.
>
> Could someone please explain the rationale for this?
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
>
> _______________________________________________
> RIFT mailing list
> RIFT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email