Re: [v6ops] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip WGLC

"George, Wes" <> Mon, 05 May 2014 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E7121A0438 for <>; Mon, 5 May 2014 14:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.416
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.416 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K9JHKwV4rgc6 for <>; Mon, 5 May 2014 14:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 582381A041B for <>; Mon, 5 May 2014 14:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,991,1389762000"; d="scan'208";a="291699469"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 05 May 2014 17:03:59 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Mon, 5 May 2014 17:04:48 -0400
From: "George, Wes" <>
To: Ca By <>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 17:04:46 -0400
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip WGLC
Thread-Index: Ac9opaW1s13wZm8nRgqaO5UjZDMvbQ==
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip WGLC
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 21:04:53 -0000

On 5/5/14, 4:00 PM, "Ca By" <> wrote:

>> First, this draft needs to formally update RFC 6333 in its metadata, as
>> think there’s a need for a formal link between the two.
>I humbly disagree.  Nothing changes in DS-lite or RFC6333 as function
>of draft-ietf-v6ops-clatip-00.
>What does change is the IANA registery of to be more
>general and serve a super set of scenarios, and that change will be
>reflected there in IANA, not in DS-lite.
>I am open to other opinions on this, but mine is that RFC6333 updated
>IANA and draft-ietf-v6ops-clatip-00 updates IANA again.
>draft-ietf-v6ops-clatip-00 does not update RFC6333

A fair point. I agree that the direction to IANA doesn’t explicitly
require an update to 6333 and you’re not really changing DSLite. My
thought was more from the perspective that originally 6333 was written
assuming exclusive use of the block, and it no longer has it. Since there
are at least small considerations about overlap, it’s worth the DSLite doc
having a link to this one for those implementing DSLite that may not be
aware of this change.


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.