[Rift] IPv4 vs IPv6

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Thu, 18 July 2019 04:42 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 057521200D5 for <rift@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 21:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 dzvFWu1QBhny for <rift@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 21:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (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 A271E120025 for <rift@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 21:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id CA0F4B2; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 06:42:28 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1563424948; bh=P12SfpltPa66AFxK2uKrl7CgEfu1xUZk5V+ebNbrUi0=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=JrSMI995ErWECHEz8h2e3deLVytrdtVEo6tmYqXFw3R3xL0UZY0p6WDnPZqhJz1yN 8g0keNITa5TM5auJzUkFmhloZdKfBkZN170c0/MHlV6MNzcWPuln0xd0qgUnnMBBum yrCjzBfIWHeP3DejpB8gnFz91UnQ4IHeMoGDOQXk=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id C674BB0 for <rift@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 06:42:28 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 06:42:28 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: rift@ietf.org
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1907180636330.19225@uplift.swm.pp.se>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/luuVwB3a_kCb09R6v4Fx03P5aN8>
Subject: [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 04:42:34 -0000

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