IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Another look at 6to4 (and other IPv6 transition issues)

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Fri, 15 July 2011 23:10 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 8A28B21F8BDC; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.419
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.180, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tytketj4C7Ob; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.64.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ACB721F8B86; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (blv-av-01.boeing.com [130.247.48.231]) by slb-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id p6FNAC5Y029109 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id p6FNA7b9028117; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:10:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-NWHT-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-08.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.112]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id p6FNA409028026 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.64.120]) by XCH-NWHT-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.112]) with mapi; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:10:05 -0700
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:10:04 -0700
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Another look at 6to4 (and other IPv6 transition issues)
Thread-Index: AcxDJ3QqjlOP9YhATMa7q2+nrXLFPQAGvlQw
Message-ID: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C6B37F8F8@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <DB5571A0CF3C3F570576A23F@PST.JCK.COM> <BBB3AB81-1A20-4022-8687-CD88B000B281@bogus.com> <A6908373951C6911489DF57A@PST.JCK.COM> <71D5A97D-7119-4082-BC87-6505370CE800@bogus.com> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C6B37F80F@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <6BD654DE-880B-43BD-89A4-1BB065AC2B1B@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <6BD654DE-880B-43BD-89A4-1BB065AC2B1B@nominum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org Operations" <v6ops@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Another look at 6to4 (and other IPv6 transition issues)
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: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 23:10:22 -0000

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com] 
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 12:43 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: v6ops@ietf.org Operations; IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Another look at 6to4 (and other IPv6 
> transition issues)
> 
> On Jul 15, 2011, at 3:37 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> >> ipv4 is becoming less usable and it's 
> >> taking autotunnels with it, nobody here has a proposal that 
> >> changes that.
> > 
> > As far as I can tell, IPv4 is not becoming less
> > usable within my organization's network.
> 
> You realize that you have not contradicted what Joel said, 
> right?     The IETF's business isn't making sure that 
> Boeing's networks are functional, much as we might 
> collectively wish you well in that regard.

If the IETF wishes organizations such as ours well, then
they should be willing to provide operational guidance.
RFCs 4057 and 4852 were a small step in that direction,
while 'draft-templin-v6ops-isops' provides actionable
information.

Fred

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email