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

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

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
>