IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] WG Doc? draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Thu, 17 March 2016 20:45 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 9B92912D6CE for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 qbibA-aUvlUF for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5FE312DB1D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mb-2.local ([8.18.217.194]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id u2HKj5op030368 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:45:05 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
To: otroan@employees.org, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
References: <A277BE71-BD70-4AFE-97DA-F224D7DBBCB8@cisco.com> <CALx6S36_Vi4XZfPvCNY42zpbXy9dXeXzwE8KedxYDhne371HHA@mail.gmail.com> <56E6326B.2090303@gmail.com> <CALx6S353ognNHWnjbNSdW5hb_e6Hv3LqLa_r+e9yEW4F=cjH=A@mail.gmail.com> <56E6FC18.1060304@foobar.org> <CALx6S35pcSj_LLnDWJ68KwSYiHeu6FwrXTaR4N2xE6aY7MRO1A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iLbqEvsw0x4dDcA3Zy3SXKUROcQuy5nSynsL9Xi+xrZLg@mail.gmail.com> <566C93D0-62FF-4700-BC05-7F9AF12AF1BD@employees.org> <56E892B8.9030902@foobar.org> <394925FE-FAB1-4FFC-B1CF-4F64CC58F613@employees.org> <56E94275.20700@foobar.org> <3AE1DE20-D735-4262-A3FB-7C01F30BAFA2@employees.org> <56E96F74.7000206@foobar.org> <CALx6S37zP4UvCtBJsvnPN6OmDB0OQDMfRrJNy1XF0t4COStUjQ@mail.gmail.com> <56E98086.504 0209@foobar.org> <EE17974D-EDA4-4732-B29E-B2B3BC36DB86@employees.org> <56E9A16B.4030605@si6networks.com> <A2634C00-EBF8-48DA-9604-790F5213F536@employees.org> <56EA93C0.104090 4@si6networks.com> <34E270CB-AEB4-4034-99B8-1E6AB528CF67@employees.org>
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Message-ID: <d6967727-1fd6-1d43-0fbb-f665ed20e101@bogus.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:45:04 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <34E270CB-AEB4-4034-99B8-1E6AB528CF67@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="j0DGgtDi5G8msN5xqwhdQNLtchlFEArkL"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/4R4tyHc-4cGvVZPsdosaNSciox4>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] WG Doc? draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:45:16 -0000

On 3/17/16 5:23 AM, otroan@employees.org wrote:
> Fernando,
> 
>> I get the impression that discussions on EHs are unpopular, because
>> people don't like to admit when there's a problem. But being n
>> engineering group, I think we better admit problems and do our best to
>> come up with solutions, than pretend there's no problem at all.
> 
> the problems are well known, just that there aren't any solutions. 

I'm pretty sure that isn't an acceptable answer in the long run. If one
belives that we should be offering guidance to implementors and
operators such that filtering is either less a persistent violation of
expections or ceases to be an issue in the long term. simply pretending
that the issue doesn't exist is a pretty bad message to developers.

> so it is pretty pointless to continue to talk about the perceived problem ad infinitum.
> 
> cheers,
> Ole
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email