IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Enterprises and draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Mon, 14 November 2011 08:08 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
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 B5E3E11E826B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:08:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.376
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.376 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nt2dDu6Pu-ni for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:08:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B118211E824C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:08:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wyf28 with SMTP id 28so4256406wyf.31 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:08:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.206.81 with SMTP id ft17mr12404105wbb.23.1321258125161; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:08:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.227.69.143 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:08:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4EC0C7A9.900@bogus.com>
References: <41172287-6CA2-4B06-8355-2E3463057DA0@inf-net.nl> <60827AA3-F326-4CB0-96C7-F74687ED614E@cisco.com> <4EC0C7A9.900@bogus.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 09:08:45 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGemqmcW31h1BB2gUamnTTc2HGiZFhCLSpv_D3t5S=GmYMwwbQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
To: Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00151747906e34f39104b1ad61ce"
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Enterprises and draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:08:49 -0000

2011/11/14 Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>

> On 11/14/11 15:41 , Fred Baker wrote:
> > </chair>
> >
> > On Nov 14, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Teco Boot wrote:
> >> In 6renum wg (enterprise renumbering), we have a need for egress
> >> router selection based on source address. This topic would be in
> >> scope of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat. But
> >> IMHO current version sticks to very small sites. Enterprises have
> >> often a multi-hop path between hosts and egress routers. Add such
> >> scenario in the document?
> >
> > Why is exit routing not a routing problem? I would think it is an
> > appropriate topic for a model such as draft-baker-fun-routing-class
>
> <troll>
>
> there's always rh0...
>

O yes. Or take another approach: L3-switches could be nice tunnel
endpoints. Often, CPU is idle on these boxes, so I don't expect objections.


>
> >> Current text and diagram in section 3.2 nicely explains the
> >> IPv4-NAPT approach. We already know how this works. Replace with
> >> something focussed on an IPv6 network?
> >
> > That would be the province of tools like RFC 6296...
> > _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
> > v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> >
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email