Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Wed, 12 October 2011 09:09 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 438E121F8C66 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 02:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.389
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.210, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 nczowphUbira for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 02:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0F7E21F8C78 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 02:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=781; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1318410551; x=1319620151; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HhOI8kIGrCfU0pQanrqPMeNC18qam4Ihqp7G6p5UC+k=; b=Mrf2rkubLHQKEf2zrQHWT3osmjgFpernzEaCPuEdGHt2q2ic63RrU+C3 YkgnbLVvYwsGqzowPMVyT6N2gLQn8Q322bIKAjPD58UgfY/0ea+5HUM7S 3Gv3F4pY5wr1av8ZrAWE3wA9OWO2h0JZlLwxwDffJ8Oh5jwUvzWXSztpp o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAGBYlU6tJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABDqCqBBYFTAQEBAwESASc/BQsLRlcGLAmHXJljAZ5ghndhBJN1hSiMSA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,333,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="27778331"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Oct 2011 09:09:09 +0000
Received: from Freds-Computer.local (rtp-vpn2-218.cisco.com [10.82.240.218]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9C998jO001423; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:09:08 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by Freds-Computer.local (PGP Universal service); Wed, 12 Oct 2011 05:09:08 -0400
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by Freds-Computer.local on Wed, 12 Oct 2011 05:09:08 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <B06E5723-1EE5-4808-AE7F-3D98EB3F17CE@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 05:08:41 -0400
Message-Id: <D7326898-A084-4EDC-BB38-C4892A8E909B@cisco.com>
References: <201110111355.p9BDt1M23806@ftpeng-update.cisco.com><282BBE8A501E1F4DA9C775F964BB21FE3EB758B7A8@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local> <1B8E4C5A-D08B-4F37-B701-A39745136A33@cisco.com> <750BF7861EBBE048B3E648B4BB6E8F4F1FDCA4C3@crexc50p> <282BBE8A501E1F4DA9C775F964BB21FE3EB758B7AB@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local> <B06E5723-1EE5-4808-AE7F-3D98EB3F17CE@cisco.com>
To: Maglione Roberta <roberta.maglione@telecomitalia.it>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org, Ullio Mario <mario.ullio@telecomitalia.it>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
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: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:09:12 -0000

On Oct 12, 2011, at 4:45 AM, Fred Baker wrote:

> I will note that this is about IPv4 life extension, not IPv6 deployment.

I should take the time to explain that comment. The abstract of 6204bis reads

   This document specifies requirements for an IPv6 Customer Edge (CE)
   router.  Specifically, the current version of this document focuses
   on the basic provisioning of an IPv6 CE router and the provisioning
   of IPv6 hosts attached to it.

The draft is not about IPv4 CPE Routers, and I would not expect SP networks to implement CGN for IPv6 apart from short-term transitional mechanisms such as NAT64. So a discussion of PCP seems misplaced. Maybe you would like to contribute a draft on CPE Router implications for IPv4 CGN Networks...