Re: [v6ops] V6ops status as of this morning

Fernando Frediani <> Wed, 20 November 2019 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A46A8120024 for <>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 07:27:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MVChIas2rpjw for <>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 07:27:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::832]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81092120013 for <>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 07:27:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id y10so29346035qto.3 for <>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 07:27:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=0JJk4EUTTvLlKlwLs2ahl/bK+yi2dWhGCbWgnzQO7e8=; b=usjb2svcfaJSuBsf0znVmnfsd30H3P+iCGOoWfZU35ZmemI/ARqSGa37qyfxZ44NPm JggQOwvilpMWYAJLd60A/WhOL226SCnhxkNOAOZ0vtBaYrbuQoYpxIBbRJW+6HFigIUv BOGjiE5tyaT+ENnq7MAsi4ZOtgeRznP5/CuZFl00N7ApV1k1PaH+iJSnYFkq+fr9YrGe Z5giy/hRkppPBn+fTZJAHjIt2i9DWWq8+EjeBJ4kwuuABwCOvMjKh8VXFbd8RoH+tvOn nynwXlECLgQNRHMIuy14utD875ZZcLYBA0iwFpkMKf/eumRvHEjFTcvW8FUI9xTBpOwv iOjQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=0JJk4EUTTvLlKlwLs2ahl/bK+yi2dWhGCbWgnzQO7e8=; b=hIfQ2AiOhmev1NEdPddrF3uQBid3m3UI1LSQKAZdjafcs1bSGumMREY4/J4g46lRPA P101O+L8vIwJ1/oS31MRQ4VzTi3wGZ8JQDXzwAPvZcDH00/ifUnPliWw+vL+rEWpP073 kBha68CFhU1i1F9yEy76o4dTV7wM92urVJbXOJB3IOqqNfTaVgJYmbkiPJN3W4IpLyQ+ cVvUD2h2Ec6kfXR9/iFuvvyIy7BQUUEwMk8vhkaoN8tvxeyl9hBx5vbZbqYsoZu+c4At WYRImW7i2G8H5FtJcEDfPCp4/9uj7lveAfsc5r3T0PXPhmIi5RA7t8+/ouW4IcOaII4C hWrw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUFArvNmu8bG+7lHoBCo3BYQH43A122swmPgzcUhucngOz9aH35 w53DQBh2XRA+YUR9W3XkNpJczs87
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqylGCWtKXvnMuPXcZX03dEoLWoKxzedpZDxiHW7MJCaW3euJpDs0Fe7cdEYy8fg7Lje3BUy9Q==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:424d:: with SMTP id r13mr3199762qtm.111.1574263658183; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 07:27:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2804:368:9:8000:38b2:644d:3e6a:ed92? ([2804:368:9:8000:38b2:644d:3e6a:ed92]) by with ESMTPSA id 70sm11824645qkj.48.2019. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 Nov 2019 07:27:37 -0800 (PST)
References: <> <>
From: Fernando Frediani <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 12:27:34 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] V6ops status as of this morning
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 21:01:21 -0000

I want also to support the working group adoption of both drafts and 
agree Fernando has done a great job in identifying these issues.

They are very present in several situations in operations for ISPs and 
due to these issues it unfortunately helps damaging the credibility of 
IPv6 and its adoption by those who are still reluctant to do. Talking to 
several colleagues that work on day by day ISP operations they were able 
to report exactly what Fernando identified and present in some 
opportunities. If nothing is done right now at some point these issues 
will come back in a higher level that will cost a lot no only for IPv6 
itself, but for operation that has been having issues related.

Therefore the issues must be addressed in some way and I believe what is 
proposed is on the correct way.

Best regards
Fernando Frediani

> Subject: Re: [v6ops] V6ops status as of this morning
> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:48:21 -0800
> From: Owen DeLong <>;
> To: Fernando Gont <>;
> CC: IPv6 Operations <>;
> Fred,
> I support working group adoption of both drafts.
> Fernando has done an excellent job of capturing the issues at hand and
> several common sense and rational improvements that could help to
> mitigate them.
> Further, the reception and comments on the drafts in the context of the
> NANOG mailing list, while perhaps not “admissible” as WG support should
> be viewed as input from the operational community to the greatest extent
> possible under IETF policies and procedures.
> As you may well know, participation in the IETF by operators has long
> been a difficult road. First, the IETF core and Operators often have
> quite opposing points of view on what is needed for a network. Operators
> often have little understanding of what is required to develop silicon
> solutions, fast forwarding, an the software to support it. Conversely,
> vendors and others in the IETF often have very limited perspective on
> the day to day realities of operating an ISP or other significant
> internet operation.
> Both sides would benefit from extensive effort to listen to each other
> in a meaningful way as the combined expertise is required to produce
> useful solutions. Unfortunately, operators that attempt participation in
> IETF are often met with vitriolic comments such that only the thickest
> of skins are able to remain long enough to make significant contributions.
> Sadly, the same is true of what happens to engineers who poke their
> heads into operational fora.
> We can all do better in this area.
> Owen
>> On Nov 11, 2019, at 03:19 , Fernando Gont <>; wrote:
>> Fred,
>> On 9/11/19 21:50, Fred Baker wrote:
>>> As I have said before, I am looking for supportive comment on the mailing list of your drafts.
>> we never asked that question. Some folks have gone ahead and expressed
>> support of the drafts. However, as authors we just asked for feedback on
>> the document(s) -- and that's what most of the discussion has been about.
>>> I saw that you sent a note to Nanog, and some replied copying the v6ops list.
>>> At the meeting a week or so hence, I have put you on the agenda to discuss your drafts. If you don't plan to be in Singapore, that's your choice; you can be on MeetEcho. But I *would* like for you to discuss your drafts with the working group. As we usually do, I'll take a hum of those there, and if there is support, I'll put out an email to the larger list, and folks can express their support or lack thereof.
>>> I asked you a specific question in the email you are replying to. Would you consider answering it?
>> The email I replied to was your post of the status of several drafts
>> (hence the subject of this email). There was no question in the email,
>> nor in the attachment.
>> So... what's the question that you asked, and where did you ask it?
>> Thanks,
>> -- 
>> Fernando Gont
>> SI6 Networks
>> e-mail:
>> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> LACNOG mailing list
> Cancelar suscripcion: