Re: [v6ops] Focused discussion: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host

Hi John,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brzozowski, John [mailto:John_Brzozowski@cable.comcast.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 7:54 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L; fred@cisco.com; v6ops@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Focused discussion: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host
> 
> AERO may address some of the same requirements and some of the use cases
> however, there are differences in implementation and deployment models in
> our draft that simply suit our needs better. I have no plans to perform a
> comparison between the two nor is AERO something we are considering.  I

So, you are saying "your way is better" when you have not even looked at
AERO?

> respect the fact that AERO has been around for some time, however, it does
> not appear to be widely deployed.

That is irrelevant.

> Please keep me honest if this is not
> the case. Also I am not aware of diverse implementations of the same.
> Just because it is exists does not mean it is the best solution for every
> deployment model or use case.

Wouldn't it make sense then to then to investigate a use case analysis for
your use case?

> What is document in our draft is what will be deployed.

Wow - doesn't seem like a very open-minded position and ignores
emerging IETF works. Are you saying that existing and emerging
works should be ignored, and a new solution blessed with no use
case analysis?

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> John
> +1-484-962-0060
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Fred Templin
> <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> Date: Monday, January 4, 2016 at 11:14
> To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, v6ops <v6ops@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Focused discussion:
> draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host
> 
> >Hi, I don't see how this discussion should go forward without a comparison
> >with what AERO already provides. AERO has been around for a long time
> >and has a comprehensive specification on how DHCPv6-PD works over
> >tunnels. It includes solutions for mobility, route optimization,
> >reliability
> >and fault tolerance, security, multiple interfaces and prefix per host
> >considerations. Although the base AERO spec calls for GUE as the default
> >encapsulation, operation over GRE is specified in a companion document:
> >
> >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-aeromin/
> >
> >I think the authors of unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host need to explain why
> >a different approach than AERO is needed.
> >
> >Thanks - Fred
> >fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of fred@cisco.com
> >> Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2016 11:00 AM
> >> To: v6ops@ietf.org
> >> Subject: [v6ops] Focused discussion:
> >>draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host
> >>
> >> And now for something a little different. I'd like to invite focused
> >> discussion of draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host, which we
> >> adopted at IETF 94
> >>
> >> Slides are at
> >> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-v6ops-4.pdf.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> v6ops mailing list
> >> v6ops@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >v6ops mailing list
> >v6ops@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> >