Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

Maglione Roberta <roberta.maglione@telecomitalia.it> Thu, 13 October 2011 07:42 UTC

Return-Path: <roberta.maglione@telecomitalia.it>
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 E3BE121F8B3A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.344
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.344 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
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 j7uCTjdiwcdy for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from GRFEDG702BA020.telecomitalia.it (grfedg702ba020.telecomitalia.it [156.54.233.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F88A21F8B35 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grfhub704ba020.griffon.local (10.188.101.117) by GRFEDG702BA020.telecomitalia.it (10.188.45.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:42:12 +0200
Received: from GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local ([10.188.101.16]) by grfhub704ba020.griffon.local ([10.188.101.117]) with mapi; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:42:12 +0200
From: Maglione Roberta <roberta.maglione@telecomitalia.it>
To: "'STARK, BARBARA H'" <bs7652@att.com>, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:42:11 +0200
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
Thread-Index: AcyJIdMjn9Yf1dpFRTWf0wxGsEhNUQAAYYXwABTVULA=
Message-ID: <282BBE8A501E1F4DA9C775F964BB21FE3EB758B7B3@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local>
References: <201110111355.p9BDt1M23806@ftpeng-update.cisco.com><282BBE8A501E1F4DA9C775F964BB21FE3EB758B7A8@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local><1B8E4C5A-D08B-4F37-B701-A39745136A33@cisco.com><4E95ED46.1010404@viagenie.ca> <24BE1240-F514-4408-BEE6-F37A9AB1E932@cisco.com> <750BF7861EBBE048B3E648B4BB6E8F4F1FE5E08D@crexc50p>
In-Reply-To: <750BF7861EBBE048B3E648B4BB6E8F4F1FE5E08D@crexc50p>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
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, 13 Oct 2011 07:42:18 -0000

I agree with Barbara: it would be better to have all the requirements related to IPv4/IPv6 migration in a single document.
When we talk about IPv6 migration we always consider also the phase of IPv4/IPv6 co-existence in order to make the transition happening. I mentioned CGN, but what I had in mind is the DS-Lite case where CGN is embedded in the AFTR and PCP fits in this scenario.

Roberta

-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of STARK, BARBARA H
Sent: mercoledì 12 ottobre 2011 23.18
To: Fred Baker; Simon Perreault
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

> I'm not certain that an IPv6 CPE Routers document should be giving
> instructions for IPv4 CPE Routers... I'd personally rather keep this
> one clean and pull the rest into an IPv4-related draft. Color me
> biased.

That's ok. I'm biased too. Just differently.

My bias is:
Extending the life of IPv4 and deploying IPv6 are not separate topics.
The same people are working on both, simultaneously, in order to provide
a holistic solution. While the access network may have many physical
components, and support connecting to different customers in a variety
of ways, it is engineered and designed as a whole. The vast majority of
consumer-grade customers aren't asking for IPv6 or IPv4. They want their
Internet connection to work. A single CE router must be able to provide
them with this working Internet connection. And since it all goes into
one CE router, it would be better if the CE router vendor could find it
in one document. The more places they have to look, the more likely it
is they'll miss something.

My preference is one document to describe all the stuff needed to
provide that working Internet connection.
We didn't need all the other IPv4 stuff, because we were working off an
assumption that CE router vendors already had that working, and weren't
looking for guidance.
I'd rather change the document scope than not provide guidance on new
capabilities that are critical for having a functioning Internet
connection.
Barbara
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.

This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.