IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] [v6ops] IPmix I-D version 01.

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Wed, 14 November 2018 12:23 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A72B12F1A5; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 04:23:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 44YdEgr4jr8T; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 04:23:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (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 5F8CD126F72; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 04:23:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id E344D4A; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 13:23:30 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:date :date:in-reply-to:from:from:subject:subject:mime-version :content-type:content-type:received:received; s=mail; t= 1542198207; bh=B7WACBnho2Oyc1/MNVEoDGRWM8u0d4ZEw7Z4meR6I8o=; b=n Jt2DUYU2eDF4iNzkNNxFBdNuzOterr7Fdylg+VFot3SVjrUhfjB4HdfMcorG/ssV qvCobJikFWXd9WCbOjOMsJWSaSTdHGo9WWLdM22g7PqYLYPt4jSSf8AMvkVO9zT6 nlQyFOp7RxpInCLym1Plb6y+pt8FAo+P2rKdslTYL4=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id Y_cclZN2RYRV; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 13:23:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a301:1000:a156:c82:82f:41b2] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a301:1000:a156:c82:82f:41b2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 13E8249; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 13:23:27 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.0 \(3445.100.39\))
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0402MB293774D01A1C350A21ADC884AEC30@HE1PR0402MB2937.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 13:23:26 +0100
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <35BBA13C-99A4-4C6F-AA86-36CEAD0E7C57@steffann.nl>
References: <HE1PR0402MB29377F0DD1854F1786FC67ACAEC20@HE1PR0402MB2937.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <78c52356-7d3e-21cc-ca3e-5e237fb4d55d@kit.edu> <HE1PR0402MB293774D01A1C350A21ADC884AEC30@HE1PR0402MB2937.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.100.39)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/08b91WsHlcZZaBHZNAduXfOKQ9g>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] [v6ops] IPmix I-D version 01.
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/softwires/>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 12:23:38 -0000

Hi,

> Let's take it step by step, first I'm not asking the IETF to publish the document as an RFC as version 01, there are more to add.
> 
>> This is simply wrong: "IPv4 only" and "IPv6 only" hosts would not be able to speak IPmix by definition of "only". This is a fundamental contradiction in your proposal. 
> 
> "Only" means the assigned IP address for the host is either IPv4 only or IPv6 only.

"Only" doesn't just refer to the addresses, it refers to the entire protocol stack.

>> If an IPv4 host would be upgraded with IPmix, there is no reason to not let it upgrade to IPv6 and be it a dual stack host. Problem solved.
> 
> IPmix is not an address as IPv6 to be assigned, the host will not be upgraded but it will be updated.

An "update" that is more complex than an "upgrade" to IPv6. It requires changes to routers to handle the packets, it requires changes to hosts to handle the packets, it requires changes to routing etc etc etc.

This draft doesn't help in any way, and therefore should be dropped.

Cheers,
Sander

PS: you have tried this before, and since you don't seem to get the message let me be blunt: this whole idea is BS, you don't seem to have a clue about protocol design, implementation, interactions and deployment, so please withdraw this and stop wasting our time.

PPS: sorry to the rest of the list for the bluntness

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email