IETF Logo Mail Archive

[v6ops] Comments on draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-01

Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Wed, 22 March 2017 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
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 4E31D129A8C for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.922
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com
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 4gARNr99UnQw for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM02-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam02on0136.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.36.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96CF1127601 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-juniper-net; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=bmd6TAV0nFsRXUkWH61pRT6Ib49J6uwjq9muvgjDcKA=; b=dVDp3gIMZZCTcRnYigY0p5i9V9U6oKJixqwkxAR7p3g+o2+zT8BEmbwY8p79/QPDo3DRx9vfbNW62pZ9lv43a5sjNlN19VJTnw2qBo2N0SpcJZjTRjq2HGSE+WdhJPM50yoqeb2Dc6YkQSo7N6oOKZqMGWEtfGAcfUH8N/t9h14=
Received: from BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.164.23.21) by BLUPR0501MB2052.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.164.23.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.991.4; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:00:51 +0000
Received: from BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.164.23.21]) by BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.164.23.21]) with mapi id 15.01.0991.013; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:00:51 +0000
From: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-01
Thread-Index: AdKjLdyen+v+SEpcRBePs4KESfAvUg==
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:00:51 +0000
Message-ID: <BLUPR0501MB20516C540E1B8F831579C1B5AE3C0@BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.13]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BLUPR0501MB2052; 7:jGJrINWs0eBuykZirVRVHdFJRWL2PZ2F9afoAWzcUdTOkl0Ua390Bdg/DvGm+DaVDXJgURroNMbfu2NLRiMzpcxRd8fxH7Zl/bIdy4rANsadwH2a8Yov0YG9caQAi23v46grs+KQrtAP1ORvljsMTgkrVgflGjNThy7T/i1UFF516loZReloyMLLmyKVPf3c0KQbGXEZ7OzcRTYvir3WWE/XmT0Hb2WGDHt7SFQUdk5fClTQ3CiromtNAbXk/FToFkN96jkITu8MzBSWquaEtVmYduMyFfOvqQfLFwW6ymaUctnztqlCFXJkK214RR3//qOhRn2biFZIRLUQNNZl4g==
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 0e3f6100-db60-4abc-ca8e-08d47144fedb
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(48565401081); SRVR:BLUPR0501MB2052;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BLUPR0501MB2052C91202919ACA2E050AECAE3C0@BLUPR0501MB2052.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123564025)(20161123555025)(20161123560025)(20161123562025)(20161123558025)(6072148); SRVR:BLUPR0501MB2052; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BLUPR0501MB2052;
x-forefront-prvs: 02543CD7CD
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(39850400002)(39840400002)(39450400003)(39860400002)(39410400002)(33656002)(189998001)(5660300001)(7696004)(7736002)(305945005)(6116002)(50986999)(102836003)(66066001)(3846002)(8676002)(6916009)(8936002)(53936002)(55016002)(9686003)(110136004)(99286003)(38730400002)(122556002)(6506006)(86362001)(6436002)(25786009)(81166006)(2906002)(230783001)(3280700002)(77096006)(3660700001)(74316002)(54356999); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR0501MB2052; H:BLUPR0501MB2051.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Mar 2017 17:00:51.1512 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR0501MB2052
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/R8Cst8Q5HsOoXRSoztNLlevOZiA>
Subject: [v6ops] Comments on draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-01
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:00:54 -0000

Jordi,

Thanks for writing this draft. I have only one comment. 

In a few places, you say that "The CE router SHOULD support foo", where foo might be 464xlat, MAP-E, MAP-T, DS-LITE, etc. I am wondering if this is an appropriate use of the 2119 keyword. 

Are these technologies required, unless there is a good reason not to implement them. If a vendor wants to address one market segment and not another, is sufficient reason not to implement.


                                                                                   /hatless
                                                                                   Ron

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email