IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 14 November 2011 08:44 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 AF03121F8E41 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:44:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.515
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.483, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 AS4jQ1RgxE+y for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:44:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A13EC21F8E19 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:44:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=4013; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1321260269; x=1322469869; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=Z2KQgFWlGyu6LHjQxoYloBtO3wQvJ22mfkJdwZa/VLQ=; b=d7/8wzdMWpQhr5e5sb9gU9gI1M/xNPnKJfOxZ5uTm1c7Np/Ju2rKcotM 1KI/AgQ+1LYLZaO0cp1d6ff1qtWGtH06mLC8oaDRENv31bK4wIHY4lt2w pNsrrqTt8jrDXg559s/8A+Cmvihs7wsbJDPWwmgVCxQtHXLUjtXY3zL98 E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EADLUwE5Io8UT/2dsb2JhbABCqX6BBYFyAQEBAwEBAQEPAVsLBQsLBBQuJzAGEyKHYAiZIAGdVwSJHGMEiA6MIIU7jEs
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.69,507,1315180800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="121516654"
Received: from bgl-core-4.cisco.com ([72.163.197.19]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2011 08:44:27 +0000
Received: from dhcp-57cd.meeting.ietf.org (hkidc-vpn-client-235-87.cisco.com [10.75.235.87]) by bgl-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pAE8iP7l020294; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:44:26 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by dhcp-57cd.meeting.ietf.org (PGP Universal service); Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:44:26 +0800
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by dhcp-57cd.meeting.ietf.org on Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:44:26 +0800
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGemqmcW31h1BB2gUamnTTc2HGiZFhCLSpv_D3t5S=GmYMwwbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:44:14 +0800
Message-Id: <209E4139-FF6D-4187-95FD-C3CA0E5ACC8A@cisco.com>
References: <41172287-6CA2-4B06-8355-2E3463057DA0@inf-net.nl> <60827AA3-F326-4CB0-96C7-F74687ED614E@cisco.com> <4EC0C7A9.900@bogus.com> <CAGemqmcW31h1BB2gUamnTTc2HGiZFhCLSpv_D3t5S=GmYMwwbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-6--644328799"
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 08:44:30 -0000

On Nov 14, 2011, at 4:08 PM, Teco Boot wrote:

> 
> 
> 2011/11/14 Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
> On 11/14/11 15:41 , Fred Baker wrote:
> > </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
> 
> <troll>
> 
> there's always rh0...
> 
> O yes. Or take another approach: L3-switches could be nice tunnel endpoints. Often, CPU is idle on these boxes, so I don't expect objections. 

:-)

>  
> 
> >> 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...
> > _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
> > v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> >
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email