IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rift] IPv4 vs IPv6

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 18 July 2019 20:39 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@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 7E45E120074 for <rift@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.997 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no 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 w-Jw9pGHD_ID for <rift@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:39:49 -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 E039A120033 for <rift@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x530.google.com with SMTP id r12so32002647edo.5 for <rift@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MJlYXZ4VUSLkRgR/hW1xQFOiHvYFpuO3jpcLqZL2oz4=; b=gJiBCa7p9Kyb7UPzggCSqEqBgAtbPDUMrchrpQcawDpSZGnW/W/U+7WXbXmXukfVwe Y7VVHp5uXTgwbr/nnm4zgCKWGj7vc6tYkO1a0nexTaFhwbcE1y63RCHmYAqMffZjvbUn WMtMe0os8MU7bHOhcDD18QYx0CrX9FJUTKz6gksdpzy9/ikWWbPviaVia+iX5dGgrP2g KpiMlYMsd4aMz+HHUXbG379pkT2KCy4q7zhT5VDmNlmlzTVUMeSewOB3oz9hyHbjN6NP jWey2lwVk68SBPyIjTUWeBGbBNwgVNaUyQJDdqulod/LOGUM8ozGCKGdY0aEv159kv8H iM9A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MJlYXZ4VUSLkRgR/hW1xQFOiHvYFpuO3jpcLqZL2oz4=; b=RCKPzRKKd4rSFHOiLXL8cgPmcdQLm8xp4oEvAEVRJcFmul9GsvEb18w4qMFRJ67lRt 2BYghgRbleii7Jc771H5yCxs7YzhIGRjAvAZHPwSJ9yzCh9F45MNKT+tuXBWxbjXynnH TgY2An7W0jI55W7Etnko8GeYGW/JXwH5S0Xso+4d5fXqS9HoLCjhTZmkkyUW/eapx8h0 G9bFElc7EbjM0KtlsufFEMk20urwU5C31vjcQTp9f1ZiZ0dRvlSCVgHONB1A9rqRfsNW teQxH7NMW3NUntSeNcnIS0VWG+1zRvVsEYMHg4MQ9wgSfry+k9a64xxufepdKii1NPyw JFRg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV/Q+1mGDJaVuD8SbiMDU5x7V32nKI/Drj8ow19XKank4oUqndg JEV6b4JgQ+PC7oUmHQ9anwert3uMia2nueNJMa0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyVSnagxteMsKqNpuYhCvzjznrSl5qYPuW5wL5ci1oCEZevJVq8md6x3VO89pFTDLV+w34Fp08O1b8qoqR6/FA=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:b561:: with SMTP id z30mr42841517edd.87.1563482387524; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:39:46 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+wi2hOkZH0O44yTikfabmDpJSqZN+_qmZnDBA1gsyFoVhzYuQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1907180636330.19225@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CA+wi2hP6K3Or7ynOUzKovxkx8ZtvnTUdKVDvjRcB8=4yjFD6aQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1907182001590.19225@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CA+wi2hOkZH0O44yTikfabmDpJSqZN+_qmZnDBA1gsyFoVhzYuQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:39:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMMESsznSPyS7zEKQNE2Ey8uZh-64P2MFE+fJt1054oaScyJtw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
Cc: rift@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000523286058dfa9cc5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/tx1K46Huscz30dt-zXJvvMKd6hw>
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 20:39:51 -0000

On July 18, 2019 at 3:50:34 PM, Tony Przygienda (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
12:00:00 GMT-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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email