[v6ops] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix-02: (with COMMENT)
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 21 June 2017 22:17 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FBFF128B37; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 15:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix@ietf.org, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix.all@ietf.org, v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com, v6ops@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.55.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149808345864.30641.6438936935007419889.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 15:17:38 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ISL8MMtXQUnz8sOWFHViydYFYig>
Subject: [v6ops] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix-02: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 21 Jun 2017 22:17:38 -0000
Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix-02: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Like Suresh, I really appreciated the discussion of rationale in section 4. There is one possibility that I'm surprised is not discussed; namely, allocating 64::ff9b::/48 for this purpose, with the subset of addresses in 64::ff9b::/96 being *additionally* subject to the restrictions of RFC 6052. This would seem to have the advantages of: - Complete address adjacency without the disadvantages of using 64:ff9a:ffff::/48 - Sharing an even longer prefix (48 bits) than the 31-bit and 47-bit prefixes discussed in the document - Eliminating the caveat described in the final paragraph of section 5 entirely This is obvious enough that it had to be considered and rejected by the WG; including the rationale for rejecting it seems appropriate here.