IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] RFC7084

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 13 December 2013 16:02 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A21221AE233; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 08:02:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=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 MmdO7JayNXBe; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 08:02:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BF8A1AE1F5; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 08:02:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Files: signature.asc : 496
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAMcuq1KQ/khN/2dsb2JhbABZgwq5aoEkFnSCJQEBBAF5EAtGVwaIDwjLHBePFQeDI4ETAQOQM5l3gys7
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.95,479,1384300800"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="1604992"
Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Dec 2013 16:01:54 +0000
Received: from dhcp-10-61-105-189.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-105-189.cisco.com [10.61.105.189]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rBDG1os0012288 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:01:50 GMT
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B086A304-115C-4362-BF19-DCF9AA7A8EDB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <160F8C4E-7523-41FE-8CEA-9528F737D486@nominum.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 17:01:41 +0100
Message-Id: <25FF8450-8BA5-467A-A62D-1845B0F2A907@employees.org>
References: <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DC7BB@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E611303B0269@GAALPA1MSGUSR9L.ITServices.sbc.com> <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DCD72@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1312100803370.24602@uplift.swm.pp.se> <F92E1B55-C74B-400C-B83E-6B50D175D121@steffann.nl> <7B4820C5-B562-4BE7-8C6A-CBCDABC39728@nominum.com> <A583EFC3-71BB-4962-875C-4AB775D13491@delong.com> <46BE373C-D476-4D83-B014-56B77FD3D67E@nominum.com> <39280481-09C5-41ED-B79E-99DBBD329F44@employees.org> <52A8343C.3040202@gmail.com> <CAAedzxq6ym-uZJQVC7JTMgKnETpGiNt3JCmkJeGW2MVnw+sixA@mail.gmail.com> <73C046AB-7CC3-499D-B737-A9ECBD3963D4@nominum.com> <A639F21E-6004-4D23-AA50-A5D03BB26FDE@employees.org> <160F8C4E-7523-41FE-8CEA-9528F737D486@nominum.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC7084
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 13 Dec 2013 16:02:03 -0000

Ted,

>> then you're understanding of "usual" is different from mine. :-)
> 
> I mean "the concern that is usually raised."
> 
>> we should be more concerned about this idea of using one protocol to provision another.
>> in this case ND to configure DHCP. is that a good design principle to follow?
> 
> It's a bit late to be asking that question.

I think it is most prudent. in that the IETF is in the process of standardising IPv6 protocol extensions to disable IPv4 (and vice versa),
and protocol extensions to IPv6 provisioning to enable IPv4 transport...

cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email