Re: [v6ops] Inviting discussion: draft-liu-v6ops-running-multiple-prefixes

Sheng Jiang <> Mon, 02 March 2015 07:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C6FE1A1A66 for <>; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 23:16:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8dFtzjWwY4V2 for <>; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 23:16:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 611761A004A for <>; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 23:16:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BPT64706; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 07:16:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 07:16:53 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:16:44 +0800
From: Sheng Jiang <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>, "Fred Baker (fred)" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Inviting discussion: draft-liu-v6ops-running-multiple-prefixes
Thread-Index: AQHQT8u8J8lmkJBw0E60yhTq/eTBy50IzY4g
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 07:16:43 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Inviting discussion: draft-liu-v6ops-running-multiple-prefixes
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 07:16:58 -0000

>On 20/02/2015 09:54, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>>   "Considerations for Running Multiple IPv6 Prefixes", Bing Liu, Sheng
>>   Jiang, Yang Bo, 2014-10-11,
>> This draft was prepared for IETF 91, but didn't get discussed in part because
>>a number of Chinese participants didn't make it to Honolulu for a Monday
>>meeting. Is there interest in discussing it at IETF 92?
>I think we should discuss whether the WG wants to publish
>a background document on this topic. This is one of the aspects
>of v6 that seems to be quite unexpected by current operators
>of site networks. Educating them seems desirable.

Giving this is a major differentia from IPv4 and many operators would have problems without knowing 

>The only thing
>is, this really is only a background document, not a "how to"

I guess this is a direction that the current document should be improved toward. It was created as a mixture of background information, "how-to" for operators and "problems" for standard actions. Focusing on background would give the document much clearer purpose.

>- and it cites 7 I-Ds, which isn't ideal for an informational
>document. Will it help those operators, or will they throw it
>on the "too hard" heap?

Most of these I-Ds are "problems" for standard actions. They are on their own progresses. Since we want to focus on background only, these I-Ds would be removed certainly.

>So, if we give it agenda time, I suggest we discuss the purpose
>of the document, not its details.

Good advice. We will follow. Thanks.

Best regards,


>     Brian
>v6ops mailing list