IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-464XLAT not a "trial deployment report" - not to be an ietf-v6ops I.D.

Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com> Tue, 21 February 2012 03:05 UTC

Return-Path: <satoru.matsushima@gmail.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 AA46721E8035 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:05:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 c56IyftlpnMw for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:05:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CD0421E802F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:05:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by dakl33 with SMTP id l33so6662483dak.31 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:05:37 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of satoru.matsushima@gmail.com designates 10.68.211.195 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.68.211.195;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of satoru.matsushima@gmail.com designates 10.68.211.195 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=satoru.matsushima@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=satoru.matsushima@gmail.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.68.211.195]) by 10.68.211.195 with SMTP id ne3mr61988343pbc.147.1329793537953 (num_hops = 1); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:05:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=gSk2Dw1Q3klM/8OqsM8Ou5U0+Twx8xRWYsK25Lr5LnM=; b=unMixnplLnOCfmzwMOz/dlzpzG/YJFbTDpQz4S1mTvu7phJ+mzTUuk+ap0Jl/5pmys cXqSyRiVG5khkTMu8fb3sWzt/+cATh6FpdU+/MSQ4BGuPMJ6eVIH2hq+XB3/4RjO8m4x oIypIWTEipScUO8pyg+9ZGDSXd9TdwJfskVKU=
Received: by 10.68.211.195 with SMTP id ne3mr51557380pbc.147.1329793537920; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:05:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.201.80.50] ([202.45.12.141]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 3sm14785418pbx.66.2012.02.20.19.05.33 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:05:36 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F42AE5F.702@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:05:31 +0900
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <81FFB44C-81F7-4C02-996A-80ABDCB1B402@gmail.com>
References: <BB119B6D-FC99-4637-988D-D17FBB50597A@laposte.net> <4F41255B.3020103@bogus.com> <4F414C28.8040606@gmail.com> <FEB35F33-5CAD-4A86-A48D-393DED45C1C4@gmail.com> <4F42AE5F.702@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Cc: Russell Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-464XLAT not a "trial deployment report" - not to be an ietf-v6ops I.D.
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: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:05:38 -0000

On 2012/02/21, at 5:34, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> On 2012-02-20 20:11, Satoru Matsushima wrote:
> ...
>> I can see a strong statement that double protocol translation is an architecture which is not recommended by the IETF.
>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-09)
>> 
>> I'd like to hear from chairs that does v6ops consent to be opposed to that statement.
> 
> Well, that's for the WG as a whole to say, not the chairs.
> 

It can be done by wg last call that is a chair's role.


> I hate translation, and I've hated it since RFC 1671. Therefore,
> I hate double translation more. However, we are going to get
> double translation anyway - via CPE NAT and CGN, or via 464XLAT.
> It is a consequence of running out of IPv4 before the universal
> deployment of IPv6.
> 
> I don't see one being more evil than the other, so it makes sense
> to document the mechanisms.
> 
>   Brian

The mechanisms are well known already, I'm interested in that the document elaborate how the past IETF(IESG) statement doesn't make sense which statement should be disappeared consequently.

cheers,
--satoru

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email