IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [smartpowerdir] Pushing IPv6

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Sun, 14 February 2010 08:24 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: smartpowerdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: smartpowerdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1639F3A7525 for <smartpowerdir@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:24:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.241
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.241 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.358, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dQKkaK9CceUE for <smartpowerdir@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:24:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26A2E3A7163 for <smartpowerdir@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:24:13 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAO5Bd0urR7Hu/2dsb2JhbACbHnSkOZZ6hFsEgxQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,471,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="299069318"
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2010 08:25:39 +0000
Received: from stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com [10.32.244.218]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o1E8PcvC018277; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:25:38 GMT
Message-Id: <E50529AC-817E-41AC-91E7-DDA8FA6DB8ED@cisco.com>
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B635A21.8080900@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:25:23 -0800
References: <4B635A21.8080900@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Cc: IETF SmartPower Directorate <smartpowerdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [smartpowerdir] Pushing IPv6
X-BeenThere: smartpowerdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Members of the Smart Power Directorate <smartpowerdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartpowerdir>, <mailto:smartpowerdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/smartpowerdir>
List-Post: <mailto:smartpowerdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:smartpowerdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartpowerdir>, <mailto:smartpowerdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:24:14 -0000

My understanding is that politics within the SGIP precluded them from  
saying that. One thing we should do is get a better handle on those  
politics; I suspect that the Enernex consultant is not completely  
unbiased (he champions the idea that the grid has "points of  
interoperability" aka gateways in it rather than general  
communications interoperability), and there are probably others who  
even if they are up for general use of IP would like to use the IP  
that they have deployed.

On Jan 29, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Russ Housley wrote:

> ARIN has sent NIST a message saying that it is not possible to get  
> enough IPv4 addresses to support SmartGrid.  However, the NIST  
> document does not include a statement of preference for IPv6.  How  
> can we make that happen
>
> Russ
>

http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email