IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-troan-v6ops-6to4-update

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-2@u-1.phicoh.com> Fri, 12 August 2011 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b29AA871B@u-1.phicoh.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 52ED621F881C for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 06:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.339
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.339 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.260, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 qcxz34ZKWhKr for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 06:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63E4721F87ED for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 06:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #66) id m1QrsFy-0001iTC; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:58:38 +0200
Message-Id: <m1QrsFy-0001iTC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-2@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b29AA871B@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <m1Qrqt5-0001iqC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <68862319-4CB9-46C7-91D0-9A0B9B142791@network-heretics.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:34:59 -0400 ." <68862319-4CB9-46C7-91D0-9A0B9B142791@network-heretics.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:58:13 +0200
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, draft-troan-v6ops-6to4-update@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-troan-v6ops-6to4-update
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: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:58:04 -0000

In your letter dated Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:34:59 -0400 you wrote:
>> so that text should at least refer to 3484bis)
>
>My impression from what I heard in Quebec City is that 3484-revise might =
>still take a while to get through the 6man WG, and it seems that many =
>people want an RFC that "updates" 6to4 to be issued as quickly as =
>possible.  If 3484-revise were approved before -update is submitted, I =
>agree that an explicit reference to 3484bis in -update would be =
>appropriate.=20

I don't think a non-normative reference to RFC3484-revise would hurt.

It is directed at different products/parts of products anyhow. Keeping 
6to4 off by default applies to routers implementing 6to4 functionality.
(And in theory also hosts with 6to4 functionality).

RFC3484-revise has to be implemented by each an every host even if the host
doesn't do anything with 6to4 because a local router may provide 6to4 to
the host.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email