IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] FW: 6rd sunsetting requirements for 6204-bis

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Tue, 24 April 2012 13:31 UTC

Return-Path: <shemant@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 519E021F87AA for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 06:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 kFQMGp5qIxE7 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 06:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E6FC21F84EC for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 06:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; l=9067; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1335274286; x=1336483886; h=mime-version:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:from:to:cc; bh=Lrv234Vnwp0PGS4aZuCp1KtDcBGLBnEwmnS8Xm7WALE=; b=Pxn0U5BhiNy3TwMxqFpW0/3NQezBUp/V7G03E97luS8dP62gxXcHHRkR iEEhWpnP56QAxfNa2Lmy+ZT8PtclZGnFqYF+W4yUJ771YrW203McKswYX qLDXPNBiz0CmBon+jJHHXjMqrsUyUijWO1pGpSPM7N309ZplG3MSt5Ums g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAM+plk+tJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABEgkavMYEHggkBAQEEEgEJEQNJDAQCAQgRBAEBCwYXAQYBRQgBCAEBBAESCBqHbZpPoFiQbmMEiGObbIFpgwc
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.75,473,1330905600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="77355905"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2012 13:31:25 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-301.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-301.cisco.com [72.163.63.8]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q3ODVP4x031427; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:31:25 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-109.cisco.com ([72.163.62.151]) by xbh-rcd-301.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:31:25 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CD221E.8B6ACADE"
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:31:23 -0500
Message-ID: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C30483747A@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C304837272@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] FW: 6rd sunsetting requirements for 6204-bis
Thread-Index: Ac0hhjsQ4vR3w6CWQTilKttqXXTLgAAAEx3AACWI3nA=
References: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C30483722C@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com><4F95A3D9.1010100@viagenie.ca><5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C304837261@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com><4F95ABA0.8090601@viagenie.ca> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C304837272@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>, Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Apr 2012 13:31:25.0299 (UTC) FILETIME=[8BC61430:01CD221E]
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] FW: 6rd sunsetting requirements for 6204-bis
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: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:31:28 -0000

V6ops Chairs,

 

I'd like to defer to you on this one.  We have been down this road
during the past two months where the
draft-townsley-troan-ipv6-ce-transitioning-02 is trying to add
requirements to rfc6204bis but the
draft-townsley-troan-ipv6-ce-transitioning-02 is clearly not completed
work.    The draft-townsley-troan-ipv6-ce-transitioning-02 seems to be
boiling the ocean and is not going to be an RFC even in one year.   So
could we stop the 6rd thrashing and just ship rfc6204bis with basic 6rd
requirements?  Further, we are also going in circles.  6rd folks gave
Chris some text to add to rfc6304bis at Paris but when Chris adds the
text to rfc6204bis we are thrashing with that text too.    I don't think
any advanced 6rd requirement has gestated for text in the past two
months.    

 

My humble recommendation is to ship rfc6204bis right now.  I am happy to
back out the Paris text added for 6rd in the -08 version.

 

Hemant

 

From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Hemant Singh (shemant)
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 3:31 PM
To: Simon Perreault
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] FW: 6rd sunsetting requirements for 6204-bis

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Perreault [mailto:simon.perreault@viagenie.ca] 
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 3:21 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: FW: [v6ops] 6rd sunsetting requirements for 6204-bis

 

>But Mark's argument is, if I understand correctly, that not supporting 

>native alongside 6rd *harms the Internet* because it prevents graceful 

>transitioning from 6rd to native. That argument is specific to 6rd, not


>generic to all tunnel interfaces.

 

Fine for an argument.  But again, the CPE router is consumer device that
needs a specification for automata related to concurrent operation of
native IPv6 and 6rd including specifying the transition from native IPv6
6rd or vice versa.  Such a specification does not exist in RFC form.
Rfc6204bis only accepts technology in RFC form or in rare exceptions,
technology where the draft is in the IESG.  

 

Hemant

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email