[v6ops] Comment on siit-dc

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Fri, 24 July 2015 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EA2E1ACF19 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 09:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QRG9HteVWnmB for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 09:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA0B11A21B6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 09:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2288; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1437756123; x=1438965723; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=TVR054W6fsNL4PucZ3VAErbR1V93h5jTk7p4JVL/RQ4=; b=VNkwq1tfV7MB3AHRJX+H0/JI3MccY1QWTzYP66zdi3bp8qO+2XVML4fF dh4nl0uLFVovzRX1c/duKWmntcQTuXAolGfqWJp6I8Sy42QDL4/qmnqiI Znvaq4o0k2EaVDS1zENz3dIvTV8L9HUx94+qftohgzmBzDNStto8Sa4LU 0=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 833
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,539,1432598400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="172209539"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 24 Jul 2015 16:42:03 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com []) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t6OGg2th020249 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 24 Jul 2015 16:42:03 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([]) by xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 11:42:02 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: "draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comment on siit-dc
Thread-Index: AQHQxi+qCOZmvDDCG0uZ0CSshzgTag==
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 16:42:01 +0000
Message-ID: <03B11480-F2E2-4B66-B7A2-1E4824E63D06@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E5AC6C71-DBA2-4F2C-B0D5-D01530B43727"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/F0SRbR1i0XB11SzWJnnJjfUFjDk>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: [v6ops] Comment on siit-dc
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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 Jul 2015 16:42:05 -0000

The abstract reads:

   This document describes the use of the Stateless IP/ICMP Translation
   (SIIT) algorithm in an IPv6 Internet Data Centre (IDC).  In this
   deployment model, traffic from legacy IPv4-only clients on the
   Internet is translated to IPv6 when reaches the IDC operator's
   network infrastructure.  From that point on, it is treated just as if
   it was traffic from any other IPv6-capable end user.  This
   facilitates a single-stack IPv6-only network infrastructure, as well
   as efficient utilisation of public IPv4 addresses.

   The primary audience is IDC operators who are deploying IPv6, running
   out of available IPv4 addresses, and/or feel that dual stack causes
   undesirable operational complexity.

I see what you're saying, but can read it as specifying how an RFC 6052 address might be used, when you're specifying the use of siit-eam. May I suggest tweaking the abstract to clarify that?