Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com> Thu, 07 July 2011 20:58 UTC
Return-Path: <jhw@apple.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 CCA1121F8841 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.71
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z5NRCFfg+NWz for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out.apple.com (honeycrisp.apple.com [17.151.62.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6784821F8849 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET="US-ASCII"
Received: from relay11.apple.com ([17.128.113.48]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-20.01 64bit (built Nov 21 2010)) with ESMTPS id <0LNZ00KHDE7ZZMT1@mail-out.apple.com> for v6ops@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 11807130-b7c45ae000001381-58-4e161db8cf9b
Received: from jimbu (jimbu.apple.com [17.151.62.37]) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (RC4-MD5/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay11.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id A2.37.04993.8BD161E4; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [17.193.13.64] (unknown [17.193.13.64]) by cardamom.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-20.01 64bit (built Nov 21 2010)) with ESMTPSA id <0LNZ0099TE8U0100@cardamom.apple.com> for v6ops@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
In-reply-to: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C30229641C@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:58:05 -0700
Message-id: <24F8A4D0-F051-4660-8575-71646E60DFD6@apple.com>
References: <E549EE58-A585-4603-85B9-C00FF295D480@gmail.com> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C30229641C@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
To: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis@tools.ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiON1OVXeHrJifwcUp5hanj+1ldmD0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxpG921kK5nJULJwt3sB4jK2LkZNDQsBEYs2RWawQtpjEhXvr geJcHEICrUwSU7edYAdJ8AoISvyYfI+li5GDg1lAXuLgeVmQMLOAlsT3R60sEPWzmCTm77sG Vi8sYCnx6MYdJhCbTUBF4tvlu2A2p4CvxOHW2WDLWARUJda39DBBzFSR+N/AD7HKRuLCtCUs ILaQQL1E/4JrbCAlIgLmEnNPJkKcKS+xuOUz4wRGgVlIjpuFcNwsJMctYGRexShYlJqTWGlo qJdYUJCTqpecn7uJERRyDYUGOxjX/uQ/xCjAwajEwxt4WdRPiDWxrLgy9xCjBAezkgjv98dA Id6UxMqq1KL8+KLSnNTiQ4zSHCxK4ryxmdx+QgLpiSWp2ampBalFMFkmDk6pBkbF8wpWYhsK tjktOZIU0KwUbLjd+2dZwYxPK7nvlUQ8TdEV9nMWeZ+qw/PPim+K/GI2Z883e99kZ/qduaH8 OmyrvcfW7LjzL+yvflPruPq+y51dW4hNck+Z0i7lyUsuX53XsNtz+Yv0qLIZWcv2sExZq/by Rh3Tx/6T/cdmJJz99f4Aq9rs1GIlluKMREMt5qLiRAAiDE50NQIAAA==
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis
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: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:58:07 -0000
On Jul 7, 2011, at 13:19 , Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > On Jul 1, 2011, at 08:44 , John Gammons wrote: >> No WAN IPv4 address - If, the CPE is delegated a prefix, but does not receive an IPv4 address (public or private) on its WAN interface, and it does not receive a DS-Lite configuration, then it may be beneficial to fallback >into a NAT46 operation (draft-liu-behave-nat46). > > My recommendation is to then have the router fail for IPv4. We are > actively trying to reduce the number of mandatory transition > technologies in the CE Rtr document in hope of facilitating > implementation. Exactly so. As a procedural matter, I wouldn't want this draft to be tied down with a dependency on anything that isn't already a working group item, and one that's pretty far along at that. I have technical concerns about PNAT-Lite, but I'll save those for the event that the procedural issues here change. I concur with Mr. Singh on this. -- james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com> member of technical staff, core os networking
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis John Gammons
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis james woodyatt