IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] LISP support for draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00

otroan@employees.org Wed, 12 April 2017 09:34 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 42A4B1242EA for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 02:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 o1LHZX1tpqss for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 02:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D866E12EB08 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 02:34:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 12 Apr 2017 09:34:47 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 525ADD788B; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 02:34:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=iE51PB1jXf8bLrltKBipIFgT2+A=; b= EVopxkpB3g/RfTZpD4jTGbFTUWNVCB38Qr2CcP5mQnjTvMH8OhdI8Jev9kjo0bNN hqebW5r2tzwimEd3gYGAy3639ASStWyoap8+n7n8dbjrGXpgD8bt/PNB8HWIH6nn rL3P+GGoMtw45Na5XKuJxRhbTcfSw/s3I0av0Feqmfc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=clOP5jImbhcmbrE2NdniTOd 7snfY4fG3yiSyDr4lx74AyiwQrsuI0dL9rDhb0bvEMJETuZd9YXvfQVK+M+jAEV4 kGf+yfCPil4txCFq3bIROo3zNONUQoMlYqqXvGeqjt4PQheJqOtFDPPDsHaZkbDO MT1Lc+sZeS6zzq9qamKY=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (219.103.92.62.static.cust.telenor.com [62.92.103.219]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1EDC8D788A; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 02:34:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D758BA903910; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:34:45 +0200 (CEST)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <392D675B-73C4-40D3-81A8-A06907F5581D@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CEA46EA1-677D-441D-9055-7029D0E7B658"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:34:44 +0200
In-Reply-To: <D8F5C737-B01A-4EC8-9175-C4921C0CD69F@consulintel.es>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
References: <D8F5C737-B01A-4EC8-9175-C4921C0CD69F@consulintel.es>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/GO_Yrc_LyKR885gIgN3sDvjRut8>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] LISP support for draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00
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: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 09:34:50 -0000

Jordi,

The standardisation of the "transitioning off IPv4 mechanisms" is a prime example of IETF failure.
You are proposing to carry that failure forward and require all CE implementations to implement _all_ the mechanisms in existence?

That is not providing "value add" to the community.

If I remember correctly that list is now: RFC2473, GRE, L2TP, LISP, MAP-E, MAP-T, 4RD, 464XLAT, Public 4over6, LW46, Dynamic LW46, ...

Best regards,
Ole

> On 11 Apr 2017, at 17:11, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I got a comment about including support for LISP in order to allow IPv4 access with an IPv6-only-WAN.
> 
> Even if I’ve got a couple of links of providers that actually use it, I believe is not something that is happening in the market, and seems to be tied to a specific vendor.
> 
> I’m not personally fan of including that support in the document, however I will like to heard some more opinions on that from the WG.
> 
> I plan to publish a new version (-01) in 1-2 days, maximum, so I will like to heard opinions about that, and in general for the actual version of the document.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email