IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Mon, 25 September 2017 10:33 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 3A5E713422B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 03:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 njNaks4mYj6f for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 03:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 148561332D7 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 03:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3BF8BB1; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:32:57 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1506335577; bh=IiCUkp3Kr25Juagl2Wot/1R++r7YMyCiWiOCKkWeCGY=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=lCu0+gLWTgwoTtZvtq7Zbp41Bs+0XHj+NroXSa9HHY1mCyqOnScwEDnb4IemJbDai 3noRlGUmQAVQkRGUlgGRy8/wHcWFfkMaO5TDUJ3czSRxKEjGJDGgo6+nkWpV4lWt2A x0CzGFN7exlyj7zTt4t4HkqdhNQ1+zdg8O9yY7Ys=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B0B284; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:32:57 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:32:57 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, v6ops@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <81661be5-4a1a-1f8a-10d0-829e775546d9@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709251231030.18564@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <369B3917-D9F3-41D4-A7BD-DAE134310004@employees.org> <20170922122146.GY45648@Space.Net> <20170922212502.E0CFF87B00BA@rock.dv.isc.org> <CAKD1Yr0VdmS0APz-G5VmxMNY1y9Kj+g0VP4Jx0_MXLkqkVyE8Q@mail.gmail.com> <4bf16a40ffd44e9498babf7094b1e526@orange.com> <f8b54014-c5af-d63f-5eed-35f19728b4f7@gmail.com> <0E9B8640-E102-4AB0-8908-28A988795861@consulintel.es> <ba63f464-cf1e-69d1-4d34-c961a8fef286@gmail.com> <2292D724-BF30-4530-A6BE-0B33E30043D0@consulintel.es> <fa203bf8-31a5-c8ef-8559-419616774787@gmail.com> <20170925102250.GA45648@Space.Net> <81661be5-4a1a-1f8a-10d0-829e775546d9@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/APUD7fWkw5ZotKB7LSs58mPnENA>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:33:00 -0000

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:

> The consequence of that is that your ignorance of IPv4 below you makes 
> you forbid some IPv6 apps.  Some of them are, but not limited to, 
> DHCPv6-PD.

This has nothing to do with DHCPv6-PD. DHCPv6-PD works just fine over both 
GTP-over-IPv4 and GTP-over-IPv6. There is no difference in this 
application.

GTP tunnel is a point-to-point tunnel and it doesn't matter what the 
infrastructure underneath is.

If the UE modem decides to drop IPv6 multicast packets it has received 
over the RLC layer (which doesn't have IPv4 or IPv6 encap underneath) then 
that's a bad modem. It has nothing to do with the rest of the discussion.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email