IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Requirements for IPv6 routers in various locations

james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> Fri, 24 February 2017 17:50 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@google.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 B3D9812943F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:50:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 Xj_6EKyDOFxn for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:50:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22a.google.com (mail-pg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68EFC12944A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:50:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id z128so14051427pgb.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:50:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=u+o65mu/Y0BoXJrj/BbREVtUNk4kHTeA3U83kUywvG8=; b=j5hynpqipDpKCtgw90ETLoZoMBX8A0sBYrvZ4vmbKmgVmY5YeOHPbrUsJ6lwGATZbx qTzH9D/016i8UC7KfQwrVpBudOJ78UdfJnkI01zUOYtiO3R/kH9jZUIHqg5PoXhgTTjE +PkFS/515hZxQ3CxpJACcNXHE//GLdw6ug67VqPs0hg4ZORE6+/rOk1Ljji2hp7Vd6bq x5UPJOKyCutInjub/o+WP7UJxa3ncAo8YD0uOMmXHXBVcS0sqRu6xN/KYldt6A52zUci A1HI4Ghq/W81ta0Zyp9PXM63X9kCFoTIXndO5yC4QabDHPf8i/GWlIpFWBXFvnBAUglQ Ndng==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to :in-reply-to:message-id; bh=u+o65mu/Y0BoXJrj/BbREVtUNk4kHTeA3U83kUywvG8=; b=MFBd5yMxQXf8HHE8+PRT4rjT6rNCGReJXZdMgZ/ONSpdG+f87Sj6xOjVmBnQjQNDmm KH8RRlVvxA3biybYv4UCcohOVoSjpXZi5UwEuZr0an+OloeHok20daKcrNL9ViXoS1RY yT1UGpEXCrdBsfvTL+LYq7oeFT1Xk5TBRcI2aN9Vh8wVxgrgrszs+CAVAhFlfDANmySX uVo3bWtAAilpficX1NbRq9O3OUHGWHo7izKWkf0MkLV8sIfvTEwF3Q7SJMflJAcQp/pR PUQqGO1IC5ejHgbEr6GjcJGjo/AMcagYH236zFc3uob1ZQLAMH8Cq6SlekoHZ1lbjwxO QHTA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lYPeNWlQDUvara3MaFoIFxhwbHiZnhBOeX4zU4aleOpNZFKCJ0fgYYw/ARG9jT7SwI
X-Received: by 10.99.168.2 with SMTP id o2mr4852527pgf.159.1487958615696; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:50:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-100-99-230-134.pao.corp.google.com ([100.99.230.134]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t12sm16289263pfg.14.2017.02.24.09.50.14 for <v6ops@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:50:14 -0800 (PST)
From: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C64962F9-19F2-4104-B78F-94858CBE1BF1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:50:23 -0800
References: <148763027040.25952.5914924936449771028.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <692043A0-04F2-46EA-84D2-D4964E925C6B@consulintel.es> <03B10A5B-ABE3-4515-90B9-D16A41039229@google.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DAC7803@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <EC9120C1-E135-4BD9-9B8B-AD9443261C13@gmail.com>
To: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <EC9120C1-E135-4BD9-9B8B-AD9443261C13@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <B0D77F3B-9366-4398-8B65-C12E9F1969D2@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/8bkKN00Y5wF2JTPlr3YhqkamWWA>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Requirements for IPv6 routers in various locations
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: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 17:50:17 -0000

On Feb 21, 2017, at 17:09, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Let me throw a question to the working group. One way to approach this is to try to push requirements for all of those markets into one document, which is what I think James is trying to do. Another way is to separate them, which is what I think Barbara is trying to do. I'm not going to say that either is automatically right or automatically wrong, but they are different, and I have visions of an argument that takes forever, boils blood, and nobody wins, if we don't systematically address it.


For the record, this misrepresents me. I do NOT want to push requirements for all the various IPv6 router deployment scenarios into a single document. I want to see RFC 7084 updated with its focus on residential gateways retained. I do NOT believe that all routers should feature implementations of Home Network Control Protocol (HNCP) services. In <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg25497.html <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg25497.html>> I gave my reasoning in support of requiring residential gateways to implement HNCP services, and I don’t see how any of my comments there could be easily misinterpreted as a call to apply this requirement to all IPv6 routers.

If anyone is taking the position that Fred ascribes to me in this comment, I’m not sure who it is.


--james woodyatt <jhw@google.com <mailto:jhw@google.com>>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email