IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Enterprises and draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 14 November 2011 07:41 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@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 673E311E8175 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:41:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -107.874
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.874 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.275, 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 Uxyv8OJ8X+R1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:41:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-3.cisco.com (ams-iport-3.cisco.com [144.254.224.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B900411E80FE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:41:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=801; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1321256477; x=1322466077; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=okoiewQMIoT/u37ht4Y3BnLgmEtcnGO2vxR6et4/4Jg=; b=g/yHNqxOdAEwsNv1bPOJHS1X79JBOFQxpCwwslihUdO43FiXLBMTFXqd WZNh+mx+GvSvF3PPKbhcKe8aT7V7hxODtCEqNx2gWxMAOu/gEgbEEG4X2 WIDdTlE2xQNMXDoFTndkMFQTsoxx/VxqaaQb2/MulNAwNOgEZklYi0a9a w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAOTEwE5Io8UQ/2dsb2JhbABCqX2BBYFyAQEBAwESASc/BQsLGC5XBjWHYJk0AZ1UiRxjBIgOjCCFO4xL
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,507,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="2994987"
Received: from bgl-core-1.cisco.com ([72.163.197.16]) by ams-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2011 07:41:16 +0000
Received: from dhcp-57cd.meeting.ietf.org (hkidc-vpn-client-233-43.cisco.com [10.75.233.43]) by bgl-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pAE7fECK007763; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:41:14 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by dhcp-57cd.meeting.ietf.org (PGP Universal service); Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:41:14 +0800
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by dhcp-57cd.meeting.ietf.org on Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:41:14 +0800
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <41172287-6CA2-4B06-8355-2E3463057DA0@inf-net.nl>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:41:01 +0800
Message-Id: <60827AA3-F326-4CB0-96C7-F74687ED614E@cisco.com>
References: <41172287-6CA2-4B06-8355-2E3463057DA0@inf-net.nl>
To: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Enterprises and draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat
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: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:41:19 -0000

</chair>

On Nov 14, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Teco Boot wrote:
> In 6renum wg (enterprise renumbering), we have a need for egress router selection based on source address. This topic would be in scope of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat. But IMHO current version sticks to very small sites. Enterprises have often a multi-hop path between hosts and egress routers. Add such scenario in the document?

Why is exit routing not a routing problem? I would think it is an appropriate topic for a model such as draft-baker-fun-routing-class

> Current text and diagram in section 3.2 nicely explains the IPv4-NAPT approach. We already know how this works. Replace with something focussed on an IPv6 network?

That would be the province of tools like RFC 6296...

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email