IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-xie-v6ops-reqirements-multi-domain-ipv6only-00.txt

Chongfeng Xie <xiechf@chinatelecom.cn> Wed, 09 February 2022 03:41 UTC

Return-Path: <xiechf@chinatelecom.cn>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A30F3A0971 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 19:41:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 mYsymRLG4KVp for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 19:41:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chinatelecom.cn (prt-mail.chinatelecom.cn [42.123.76.228]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FD423A0977 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 19:41:11 -0800 (PST)
HMM_SOURCE_IP: 172.18.0.48:51316.1440656050
HMM_ATTACHE_NUM: 0000
HMM_SOURCE_TYPE: SMTP
Received: from clientip-219.142.69.76 (unknown [172.18.0.48]) by chinatelecom.cn (HERMES) with SMTP id 4F55228013E; Wed, 9 Feb 2022 11:40:51 +0800 (CST)
X-189-SAVE-TO-SEND: 66040161@chinatelecom.cn
Received: from ([172.18.0.48]) by app0024 with ESMTP id 925d12ad794d4d91955ca609e2a4335a for mohamed.boucadair@orange.com; Wed, 09 Feb 2022 11:40:52 CST
X-Transaction-ID: 925d12ad794d4d91955ca609e2a4335a
X-Real-From: xiechf@chinatelecom.cn
X-Receive-IP: 172.18.0.48
X-MEDUSA-Status: 0
Sender: xiechf@chinatelecom.cn
From: Chongfeng Xie <xiechf@chinatelecom.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BEE120C9-9433-451C-95C8-34234BE2C3CB"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2022 11:40:48 +0800
References: <94961E2C-DEFE-429B-BCEC-2228472747D7@chinatelecom.cn> <19F871B0-2FAF-41B4-856B-2BD42C72AC53@chinatelecom.cn> <9790_1644334080_62028BFF_9790_314_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303548E1E3@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
To: "<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, v6ops@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <9790_1644334080_62028BFF_9790_314_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303548E1E3@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Message-Id: <C79D8BCE-0849-476D-8E68-CEE94039EEF7@chinatelecom.cn>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/0B9SGEkHGoSHdM9XDUA2HAwlRw8>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-xie-v6ops-reqirements-multi-domain-ipv6only-00.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2022 03:41:17 -0000

Hi，Med，
Thank you for your comments and modifications, which are very valuable to improve the draft.  My feedbacks are inline below with [CF].
I appreciate further discussion and comments. 

Best regards
Chongfeng


> 2022年2月8日 下午11:27，<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> 写道：
> 
> Hi Chongfeng,
>  
> Glad to hear from you.
>  
> You may find some comments on the first part of the document at: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/raw/master/draft-xie-v6ops-reqirements-multi-domain-ipv6only-00-rev%20Med.doc <https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/raw/master/draft-xie-v6ops-reqirements-multi-domain-ipv6only-00-rev%20Med.doc>
>  
> Overall, I think that many of the scenarios are deployment-specific but I do agree there is a value on listing the approaches to optimize forwarding paths. 

[CF] Yes. One of the purposes of the draft is to optimize forwarding paths by minimizing the IPv4-IPv6 conversion overhead when packets traverse multiple ASes which may serve different scenarios.  
> 
>  
> If the packets are just encapsulated, this is not an issue as even what is called “IPv6-only network” usually relies on IPv4 (but this is hidden, see 6PE approach).

[CF] This is not just about encapsulation. In mobile network, translation-based 464XLAT is the mainstream IPv6-only approach, IMO encapsulation alone can not meet the requirements of IPv6-only deployment of large-scale network. 
>  
> Feel free to forward this message to the list.
>  
> Cheers,
> Med
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email