Re: [v6ops] LISP support for draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00

[Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

> It is simple to understand, because both, 6in4, 6to4, and 6rd, actually 
> do exactly the same encapsulation/decapsulation (protocol-41), and 
> exactly the same routing thing. The difference is that in 6in4 is called 
> a tunnel broker (or similar), in 6to4 is a 6to4 relay, etc. All the 
> parameters in the UI are the same.

Not necessarily. For 6to4, you basically don't need any user settable 
parameters. It's all well-known. For 6in4, you need delegated prefix, 
remote IPv4 relay address. For 6RD you need even more parameters, 
especially for the modes where you don't map everything into the full IPv4 
32 bit space.

So the UI designer need to take into account all these three, or the user 
will probably be confused. Yes, 6in4 and 6to4 are subsets of 6RD but they 
still require different code to do the UI and input validation correctly, 
compared to 6RD. My opinion is that your text should be changed to 
something like this to paint the minor difference in a more positive 
light?

----

The CE router MAY support 6in4 functionality.  The main difference between 
6in4 and 6rd is the parameters needed for configuration. The on-wire and 
forwarding plane is identical for both mechanisms. Thus, if the device 
supports either 6rd or 6in4, it's commonly a minor UI addition to support 
both.  If 6in4 is supported, it MUST be implemented according to 
[RFC4213].  The following CE Requirements also apply:

---

I am not really happy about above text, I'm sure someone can rewrite it 
even better.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]