IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Tue, 18 October 2011 16:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 2A17D21F8ACE for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.204
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.204 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.045, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
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 65q74sww9Ojw for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:55:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66A6D21F8B3F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:55:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.1]) by omfedm13.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 210483244DD; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:55:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from puexch91.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.48]) by omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id EFF5D35C1F1; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:55:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.7]) by puexch91.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.48]) with mapi; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:55:37 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>, "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>, Maglione Roberta <roberta.maglione@telecomitalia.it>, "draft-ietf-pcp-base@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pcp-base@tools.ietf.org>, "pcp-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <pcp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:55:36 +0200
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
Thread-Index: AcyIu2t8cEmEfoUVRZO+1VXRKDAbdgE8IbWQAAF+JmAAAQcFQA==
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F35A2DDC0801@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <201110111355.p9BDt1M23806@ftpeng-update.cisco.com><282BBE8A501E1F4DA9C775F964BB21FE3EB758B7A8@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local><1B8E4C5A-D08B-4F37-B701-A39745136A33@cisco.com><750BF7861EBBE048B3E648B4BB6E8F4F1FDCA4C3@crexc50p><282BBE8A501E1F4DA9C775F964BB21FE3EB758B7AB@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local><B06E5723-1EE5-4808-AE7F-3D98EB3F17CE@cisco.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F35A2DDC07B7@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C303130A41@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C303130A41@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.5.9.395186, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2011.10.18.161514
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, Ullio Mario <mario.ullio@telecomitalia.it>, "draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org>, MEILLAREC Loïc OLNC/NAD/TIP <loic.meillarec@orange.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
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, 18 Oct 2011 16:55:40 -0000

Dear Hemant,

Because we have the same pressure at the PCP front, including the PCP-requirements in the 6204bis is more safe IMHO. There is a risk to forget inserting appropriate text during the IESG review. 

Cheers,
Med

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:shemant@cisco.com] 
Envoyé : mardi 18 octobre 2011 18:25
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP; Fred Baker (fred); Maglione Roberta; draft-ietf-pcp-base@tools.ietf.org; pcp-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Cc : v6ops@ietf.org; MEILLAREC Loïc OLNC/NAD/TIP; draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org; Ullio Mario
Objet : RE: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

Mohamed,

Thanks for your feedback.  Please see this message I sent earlier on the PCP subject.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg10643.html

Fred as Chair has one suggestion.  During the IESG stage for the rfc6204bis document, we can consider adding PCP if PCP becomes an RFC by that timeframe.   The IPv6 CE router document has its hands tied.  I would work with the PCP and PCP proxy folks to get them to be RFC's ASAP.

Regards,

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 11:41 AM
To: Fred Baker (fred); Maglione Roberta; draft-ietf-pcp-base@tools.ietf.org; pcp-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org; MEILLAREC Loïc OLNC/NAD/TIP; draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org; Ullio Mario
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

Dear Fred, all,

As part of our DS-Lite deployment, PCP is a requirements for us. I strongly support including PCP in 6204bis.

Note that PCP is not only about IPv4 service continuity but also about IPv6... 

Cheers,
Med

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email