IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment and draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 29 March 2021 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 668963A1A61 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 09:38:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.668
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.668 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 EfmeGgxDasCX for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 09:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (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 3BB153A1A65 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 09:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 12TGba4x015151 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 18:37:36 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 007842055A0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 18:37:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB9492014AF for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 18:37:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.14.1.210] ([10.14.1.210]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 12TGbZgY023576 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 18:37:35 +0200
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <BL0PR05MB5316425C5650B5D2FE43DE4DAE6C9@BL0PR05MB5316.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <59B5C1F7-48E4-4915-BAAC-41D8ADA29E8F@gmail.com> <18ea74665936408bb33f20630da95311@huawei.com> <E0757B36-8FFB-43A8-8F8B-A7F152F81156@gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2cfecf2c-5526-92d0-716d-5e07d4d9061a@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 18:37:35 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E0757B36-8FFB-43A8-8F8B-A7F152F81156@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/H_TaQez65sUNnmqT7pVgPS3pR-Y>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment and draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 29 Mar 2021 16:38:06 -0000


Le 27/03/2021 à 05:58, Fred Baker a écrit :
> 
> 
>> On Mar 19, 2021, at 1:39 AM, Paolo Volpato
>> <paolo.volpato@huawei.com> wrote:
>> 
>> For lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison, on behalf of the authors of
>> draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment I can say we are in favor of the WG
>> adoption. Not only is it a good description of the transition
>> technologies to IPv6, but it also constitutes a basis for our
>> draft.
> 
> OK, let me put this to the working group. We asked about adoption of
> draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison once before (in January 2020),
> and got essentially no response. It has come up on the list twice
> since, in July and in November. The authors of
> draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment would like to see it adopted. The two
> sets of authors are disjoint. I therefore have at least nine people
> that would like to see us adopt and publish it. What other folks have
> opinions, pro or con?
> 
> Along the same lines, are there opinions regarding the adoption of
> draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment?

Hi, Fred,

Generally speaking I am in favor of immediate adoption of drafts that 
describe IPv6 deployments, so of these ones too.

I have some input to offer from my experiments on an IPv6-only computer 
connected to the Internet.  For example I would suggest to not use any 
URL that does not work.

There is an 'IPv6 survey' reported in the draft, so I could offer 
another results of IPv6 survey, in English, but from France.

There is advice that is provided in the draft as well.  I might agree 
with some advice and disagree with some other, and suggest another one.

I would suggest to describe more of the pure translation-less IPv6 
deployments on 'bare metal' where IPv4 is completely absent.  Maybe use 
more of a perspective where IPv4 does not exist and IP is all there is 
to be (to signify IPv6).

Then there is the 64bit problem that I really believe to be a problem of 
IPv6 deployments and mobile networks, but which is not mentioned.

Alex


> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=a&q=%22draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison%22
>
> 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=a&q=%22draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment%22
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
> v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email