IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Fri, 14 October 2011 04:51 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.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 C126721F8634 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 21:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.681
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.681 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.918, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A+uoIEUy5fc5 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 21:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD2821F861E for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 21:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; l=1672; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1318567889; x=1319777489; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date: message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YyifcIRJqZ9jZ4Hmz6AcgbZwwMjpHCwKQKvSYm+fuSM=; b=VX3op0wv/77tjTJpSjlt73tF+KLeAJ+6tuVArY4I+7B3wIz9L4YHx1l+ BKQPIJ9Mquv3Vg9Ln/XjpuA0gOEofHmgF20CdJJUl+gudpBnp9wrewgvP afpsGur6Ehpftiu56uSbbWEF31hYZljnewjt0STga9QKzmMlNtirkr+Mo 4=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,344,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="7812714"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Oct 2011 04:51:28 +0000
Received: from dwingWS ([10.32.240.197]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9E4pRUn017095; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 04:51:27 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Lorenzo Colitti' <lorenzo@google.com>, 'Fred Baker' <fred@cisco.com>
References: <201110111355.p9BDt1M23806@ftpeng-update.cisco.com> <282BBE8A501E1F4DA9C775F964BB21FE3EB758B7A8@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local> <1B8E4C5A-D08B-4F37-B701-A39745136A33@cisco.com> <4E95ED46.1010404@viagenie.ca> <24BE1240-F514-4408-BEE6-F37A9AB1E932@cisco.com> <CAKD1Yr0NH6CmqN5OtGeMTo8_be95DijZGKCxEFNsnu0sJiXsYA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0NH6CmqN5OtGeMTo8_be95DijZGKCxEFNsnu0sJiXsYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 21:51:27 -0700
Message-ID: <03c701cc8a2c$ef03cea0$cd0b6be0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcyJ4O5D82lBpiVcTu+SlItiMJnCPgAS7zIQ
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 14 Oct 2011 04:51:29 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Lorenzo Colitti
> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 12:39 PM
> To: Fred Baker
> Cc: v6ops@ietf.org; draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
> 
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 16:59, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 	I'm not certain that an IPv6 CPE Routers document should be
> giving instructions for IPv4 CPE Routers... I'd personally rather keep
> this one clean and pull the rest into an IPv4-related draft. Color me
> biased.
> 
> 
> Agreed. If I recall correctly, in Quebec consensus was that we should
> take the 6204bis draft and split out a small, lightweight document that
> was close to being done and only specified WAN side behaviour. That way
> we could publish the document quickly, so as to unblock the deployments
> waiting on it.

Agreed -- IPv4 doesn't belong.

> Holding this document writing new text about how PCP works is just
> going to slow it down with no benefit. Why can't we just have this
> document go out and put the PCP text, when it gets written, into a
> future document?

Er, but PCP is not just about IPv4 and PCP has never has been solely 
about IPv4.  See my other post at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg10665.html

> We already don't have a single document that explains what a CE router
> manufacturer needs to do to implement a dual-stack gateway, but that's
> OK. I think we all understand that in order for any device on the
> Internet to work, any device needs to support more than one RFC.

-d

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email