IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Comment on draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices-09

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 03 November 2015 00:46 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E6B21AC3CD for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:46:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 pwl8NBCBwysL for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:46:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x231.google.com (mail-pa0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::231]) (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 8F08D1AC3E2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:46:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pasz6 with SMTP id z6so1479275pas.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Nov 2015 16:46:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=EdrJECv2cGXF30dKVLB8ZYTd8h+t6TGiLfre9Lw4dPU=; b=ITcfBh20l21yJzcp+Ky0CyhEwv/Xd7adq97Lh6MiXzpJROcePd+RZQ3qlI4+MI2QDB xWzIsD+o3wA5McN6BA8v60qBazXIhENnKS46p0kZ4fa1ZBJiXoLQOuJ6mvrWG5JJAf6F tWlxwd/o9LQuTmWU26E5XZqCAp1ByqGtWCCAVUx4pdasYJGEGITrW+L4NrAZbeoLIsYI 4DlkRKqN49tntZaNsDFy6f2AAJzPry629h3loxLJ/wROlYwruY/Gs2PBWfwUFuXtI5cw iVxIcbID7a4b1J8Kj0sz4wymL+PQUG1fg/AoPp+wLUUkrU7ApA+xaZedHTpGMSUVv+4P MgOQ==
X-Received: by 10.69.11.97 with SMTP id eh1mr30498865pbd.71.1446511567249; Mon, 02 Nov 2015 16:46:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76? ([2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id sz9sm26259166pab.13.2015.11.02.16.46.04 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Nov 2015 16:46:06 -0800 (PST)
To: Philip Matthews <philip_matthews@magma.ca>
References: <563734D2.2@gmail.com> <01D87BBE-112A-4F40-9F1B-2272B2471457@magma.ca> <5637DADF.8090308@bogus.com> <5637E32E.1020504@gmail.com> <9DE6D3AE-8E99-43D4-8A01-91A7C6168446@magma.ca>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <563803CD.9080103@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 13:46:05 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9DE6D3AE-8E99-43D4-8A01-91A7C6168446@magma.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/23FbKtlTLa875RjBuOb-BsDDTa8>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Comment on draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices-09
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 00:46:09 -0000

On 03/11/2015 13:06, Philip Matthews wrote:
> The draft is explicitly about IPv6-only and dual-stack networks, and it seems to me that even mentioning IPv4-as-a-service is not really necessary.

I don't feel strongly about this.

   Brian

> - Philip
> 
> On 2015-11-03, at 7:26 , Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>> On 03/11/2015 10:51, joel jaeggli wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>> dual stack  deployment is a common operating modality and has been for a
>>> rather long time. there's definitely a tax to be payed with respect to
>>> resource usage, and complexity that doesn't exist in a v6 only network,
>>> but  support of your existing model while building the new is incremental.
>>
>> It seems to me that *this* draft should simply state that there are
>> two main options for service continuity for IPv4 applications (dual
>> stack or IPv4 as a service) but this is out of scope for the current
>> document. Otherwise the draft will get bogged down for months.
>>
>>    Brian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email