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

Victor Kuarsingh <victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com> Wed, 19 October 2011 03:10 UTC

Return-Path: <victor.kuarsingh@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 6DFE421F863E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 ey0uyC0vMvH9 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE9C121F85FF for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:10:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ggnv1 with SMTP id v1so1508388ggn.31 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AilH5HQphzEuQfI/1dF7oEYqrOx76xGl7gB/H8e+KKM=; b=MhdTWo+hFLFAh9z2ssbbza5WDmaOmI8oRUxJVSU3xtgEFMv9cKTFcbn3P5jfzA8HpW eUNJ4ooGUKTKbYK0vaV6aY0LQscAedwXvKY6mVtOLD9LCziRjJOI9tuIsQS4LTP1KVOC VKP8s4UXbpDByemldG/yy/OpZT12g8WQQYaIQ=
Received: by 10.150.214.14 with SMTP id m14mr4582419ybg.74.1318993809691; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.200.162] (CPE24ab81b96d12-CM001a666bafe6.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com. [99.230.124.175]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p5sm11840932anl.18.2011.10.18.20.10.04 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.0.0.100825
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 23:10:00 -0400
From: Victor Kuarsingh <victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com>
To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <CAC3B376.10571%victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
In-Reply-To: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C303130C12@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org
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: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:10:15 -0000

Hemant,

Sorry If I am getting to the game a bit late on this, but I had a question
on section 4.4.3 (Transition Technology Coexistence).

I kinda agree with some of the points in this section, but from what I
read here the suggestion is that we may have multiple transition
technologies running at the same time on the same home gateway.

Was this the intention of the text?

>From my point of view, I would not necessarily think that "turning
everything on" is a good idea.  I know the text provides facilities to
help manage some of the use cases (say running 6RD and Native IPv6 at the
same time), but this seems a bit complicated.

My question would be, if I have Native IPv6, why turn on 6RD at all?
Also, if I have a native IPv4 address, why turn on DS-Lite?  Whereas I
understand that doing it in this method may speed up connectivity to the
network (perhaps it's taking long for the IPv6 addressing to work and I
already have my IPv4 addressing complete with 6RD parameters), but is
there a lot of value in this?

Would a decision tree be warranted in this case?  I.e. Ask for both IPv6
and IPv4.. And if I get both, native dual stack is king.  If I get IPv4
only with the needed parameters then 6RD is good.  If I get IPv6 only with
parameters, then do DS-Lite.  This way I only need to enable the functions
and security modes needed for one of the three operating modes (NDS, 6RD,
DS-Lite).

The only hole is see here is if the operator provided an IPv4 address, and
IPv6 address but no PD came down.  I guess 6RD may be a good idea.

Perhaps I am alone in this line of thought.

Regards,

Victor K

>