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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>]

Hi Barbara,

RFC5569 (6rd) is referring to 6to4 encapsulation (RFC3065), which is referring to RFC2893 (6in4, protocol 41), which has been updated by RFC4213.

We are talking about the same.

If you have a 6to4 router at home, you can just try. Create a HE tunnel broker, and input manually the parameters even if your router only shows a 6rd in the GUI. It works. Believe me.

Regards,
Jordi
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: "STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail]>
Responder a: <[e-mail]>
Fecha: miércoles, 12 de abril de 2017, 20:54
Para: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Asunto: RE: [v6ops] LISP support for draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00

    
    > May be this will make it:
    > 
    > Actual text:
    > The CE router MAY support 6in4 functionality.  If 6rd is implemented,
    > 6in4 MUST be supported as well.
    > 
    > 
    > New text:
    > The CE router MAY support 6in4 functionality.  If 6rd is implemented,
    > 6in4 is already supported as well, as the underlying protocol/technology is
    > the same, being the only difference, having the mention of “6in4”
    > in the GUI/CLI (just an example) if it is being configured manually, or even
    > stating that in the relevant documentation. In other words, no additional
    > code is required for the support of 6in4 when 6rd is already supported
    
    No. 
    I'm fine suggesting that RFC 5569 MAY be supported. 
    This RFC is commonly referred to as "6rd". Anyone who wants to have RFC 5569 functionality referred to by another name in their GUI or other user interface is free to do so. UI naming, character set, and language are not in scope of this document.
    
    RFC 5569 does not reference RFC 4213. It has no dependency on RFC 4213 and is not the same as RFC 4213. These are 2 distinct and separate RFCs.
    I will not support any linkage of these 2 RFCs in a 7084-bis.
    This would impact my company and the requirements we use in CE router procurement directly (making it impossible for us to use 7084-bis as a reference directly or through BBF TR-124).
    
    If there's someone who wants RFC 4213, let them justify it without trying to add expense and complexity to my CE routers.
    Barbara
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.