IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Enterprises and draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Mon, 14 November 2011 08:04 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
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 6D2CA11E8266 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:04:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.376
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.376 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 O7B5A+bX-w7p for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:04:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 394B511E80B5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:04:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wwe5 with SMTP id 5so2825212wwe.13 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:04:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.205.135 with SMTP id fq7mr765447wbb.19.1321257853192; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:04:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.227.69.143 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:04:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <60827AA3-F326-4CB0-96C7-F74687ED614E@cisco.com>
References: <41172287-6CA2-4B06-8355-2E3463057DA0@inf-net.nl> <60827AA3-F326-4CB0-96C7-F74687ED614E@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 09:04:13 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGemqmciiSm8eV1mCV5j-fy8xQugEh6A49xrZbG_K_EFz3FEfw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0015176f0824ff0acf04b1ad5020"
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Enterprises and draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat
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: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:04:17 -0000

2011/11/14 Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>

> </chair>
>
> On Nov 14, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Teco Boot wrote:
> > In 6renum wg (enterprise renumbering), we have a need for egress router
> selection based on source address. This topic would be in scope of
> draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat. But IMHO current version
> sticks to very small sites. Enterprises have often a multi-hop path between
> hosts and egress routers. Add such scenario in the document?
>
> Why is exit routing not a routing problem? I would think it is an
> appropriate topic for a model such as draft-baker-fun-routing-class

Sure. The BRDP-based routing model is fun also, although less fundamental.

I don't care v6ops or 6renum produces a gap analysis doc to kick some wg in
routing area.



> > Current text and diagram in section 3.2 nicely explains the IPv4-NAPT
> approach. We already know how this works. Replace with something focussed
> on an IPv6 network?
>
> That would be the province of tools like RFC 6296...


I thought the goal of this draft is try to avoid?

Teco.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email