IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Mon, 14 November 2011 07:47 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
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 7810911E821C for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:47:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.224
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.224 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 YVo7OTxc7aqh for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:47:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1E4111E8201 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:47:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-2510.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-2510.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.37.16]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAE7lsnv065247 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:47:56 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <4EC0C7A9.900@bogus.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:47:53 +0800
From: Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
References: <41172287-6CA2-4B06-8355-2E3463057DA0@inf-net.nl> <60827AA3-F326-4CB0-96C7-F74687ED614E@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <60827AA3-F326-4CB0-96C7-F74687ED614E@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:47:57 +0000 (UTC)
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 07:47:59 -0000

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...

>> 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