Re: [v6ops] LISP support for draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00

Hi Ole,

No, sorry, I guess you misunderstood my email.

I’m NOT in favor of including an unlimited number of mechanisms, and I think we must focus in those that have a real traction. I’m NOT in favor of including LISP.

However, the document is a WG document, so is not just my decision, but the WG, so I must ask the WG opinions before “rejecting” LISP. That was my question.

I think we need to have a balance:
1) Main goal, support of IPv6-only access but allow IPv4 to keep working in the customer’s LANs.
2) Allow the support of “older” IPv6-in-IPv4 (basically 6rd) as it was in the previous version of the document, but moved to MAY. Deployments that today have IPv4-only access, can start deploying IPv6 (in IPv4 if they need it), but use the same CE for when they can move to IPv6-only access.
3) Support a subset of IPv4-in-IPv6 (from all those that IETF designed), based on market relevance and understanding that most of them don’t take additional code in the CPE, because most of this code is basically the same.

So, to make it short, unless there is a “magic” mechanism that I’m not aware of, and the WG decides to include it, my intend is no longer include anything new in the document. And if that “magic” mechanism exists, then we could delete all the others.

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: <otroan@employees.org>
Responder a: <otroan@employees.org>
Fecha: miércoles, 12 de abril de 2017, 11:34
Para: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
CC: <v6ops@ietf.org>
Asunto: Re: [v6ops] LISP support for draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00

    Jordi,

    The standardisation of the "transitioning off IPv4 mechanisms" is a prime example of IETF failure.
    You are proposing to carry that failure forward and require all CE implementations to implement _all_ the mechanisms in existence?

    That is not providing "value add" to the community.

    If I remember correctly that list is now: RFC2473, GRE, L2TP, LISP, MAP-E, MAP-T, 4RD, 464XLAT, Public 4over6, LW46, Dynamic LW46, ...

    Best regards,
    Ole

    > On 11 Apr 2017, at 17:11, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
    > 
    > Hi all,
    > 
    > I got a comment about including support for LISP in order to allow IPv4 access with an IPv6-only-WAN.
    > 
    > Even if I’ve got a couple of links of providers that actually use it, I believe is not something that is happening in the market, and seems to be tied to a specific vendor.
    > 
    > I’m not personally fan of including that support in the document, however I will like to heard some more opinions on that from the WG.
    > 
    > I plan to publish a new version (-01) in 1-2 days, maximum, so I will like to heard opinions about that, and in general for the actual version of the document.
    > 
    > Regards,
    > Jordi
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > **********************************************
    > IPv4 is over
    > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    > http://www.consulintel.es
    > The IPv6 Company
    > 
    > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > _______________________________________________
    > v6ops mailing list
    > v6ops@ietf.org
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.