IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Comment on draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices-09

Philip Matthews <philip_matthews@magma.ca> Tue, 03 November 2015 00:07 UTC

Return-Path: <philip_matthews@magma.ca>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67ACB1A914F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:07:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bJ-eRym5SNSx for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:07:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tor-smtp-06.primus.ca (smtp-auth-2.primus.ca [67.230.159.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3F641A9153 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:07:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from i223-218-131-39.s41.a014.ap.plala.or.jp ([223.218.131.39] helo=[192.168.2.100]) by tor-smtp-06.primus.ca with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <philip_matthews@magma.ca>) id 1ZtP8C-0004m4-Gs; Mon, 02 Nov 2015 19:07:20 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Philip Matthews <philip_matthews@magma.ca>
In-Reply-To: <5637E32E.1020504@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 09:06:47 +0900
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9DE6D3AE-8E99-43D4-8A01-91A7C6168446@magma.ca>
References: <563734D2.2@gmail.com> <01D87BBE-112A-4F40-9F1B-2272B2471457@magma.ca> <5637DADF.8090308@bogus.com> <5637E32E.1020504@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
X-Authenticated: philip_matthews - i223-218-131-39.s41.a014.ap.plala.or.jp ([192.168.2.100]) [223.218.131.39]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/VpeC9uXEAAsLiognVYbVYHzgGEw>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Comment on draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices-09
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 03 Nov 2015 00:07:24 -0000

The draft is explicitly about IPv6-only and dual-stack networks, and it seems to me that even mentioning IPv4-as-a-service is not really necessary. 
- Philip

On 2015-11-03, at 7:26 , Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> On 03/11/2015 10:51, joel jaeggli wrote:
> 
> ...
>> dual stack  deployment is a common operating modality and has been for a
>> rather long time. there's definitely a tax to be payed with respect to
>> resource usage, and complexity that doesn't exist in a v6 only network,
>> but  support of your existing model while building the new is incremental.
> 
> It seems to me that *this* draft should simply state that there are
> two main options for service continuity for IPv4 applications (dual
> stack or IPv4 as a service) but this is out of scope for the current
> document. Otherwise the draft will get bogged down for months.
> 
>    Brian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email