IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] WG Call For Adoption: draft-xie-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay-05

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 27 November 2022 21:42 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 6831BC14CF0B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 13:42:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 89SUoeXNXAqS for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 13:41:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102b.google.com (mail-pj1-x102b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC8F5C14CF00 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 13:41:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102b.google.com with SMTP id w15-20020a17090a380f00b0021873113cb4so8565476pjb.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 13:41:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=2JAkyXstXVf4bzaGNp8ymSzHcB4UR10Upsxf17UwGPE=; b=WpSF6fBF1DIhnZmIZSPqEd/QcO9Vt40FRj89KbH0UlHLZg3fl63c4i+P5PWhFPXBS9 vv5zH1VYX6qUFP89Biy1+tO2M80oYUbVxDq+iYK1WJpdtvpltZ5jy9JTDSxMs79VgkNe rTEQUVRRvYdGU+mbTV/Sl3t+2Hx/tR/2H0HGSXOEssB0kYItC2q99WN0q93GDV8Py+77 gfZ1OUzFBRUZk7mVCQN/SEfv+0yHQhZmYOLmAjslhC6DcYtpozedAJAUCcYDzDFWwCRX Ug61RbItH4tIvbHnaFw9oICjXPtE7pzDX4JUeZv+z6XXNWxjROhxARszQ+lZOFsUVBUD Q/1w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=2JAkyXstXVf4bzaGNp8ymSzHcB4UR10Upsxf17UwGPE=; b=41Z51zSm6owMtvE/A4YwEboT8Se7IE+eiC31MPM9tiMAFjT8a3BAxPorbcnc8PKxHK G/ZGvt/Y+hCsHI0j/RDMB0wzwhU9LGQnIFqgfWdf8akn8kfzjKRuQrpzExKzmC3UBVQy BnhPspYuEFjgNj8z/9zJZr6cfuIdcv0mcXlUma1kBxKeb6A0RETp/Kn67GRSY/YcLZU2 oGdrLCvVOouo20jYfeu7FETBwzbv/oKw0V+yatTk1H+rdnx6x92awqmJNEIXB1IMR2WW Dq8bHMw12K3ErS4OvwVOtGaNC8XsqpoOPM3kLhy6BY6Z7Lvecpqf7d4TuO+zlJCdwqMw s8WA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pmWtkijXAb82u3dQbUW4ZgwNDpYwycg8O3YsOTC1C8Gu3WFJb+m DaRvQjIu70qGL3Tlzl6DMV3tFE3ssymTyQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf6T6O5seDuBFNfCBcbM+qZY9kK25B4IHpVFPz7xqjnOFfO728jbzGOo9XEBJLxA8RKKKzAZGQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ecca:b0:189:ee1:23f with SMTP id a10-20020a170902ecca00b001890ee1023fmr30002735plh.75.1669585318078; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 13:41:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPV6:2406:e003:1124:9301:672e:17ee:b374:8a9b? ([2406:e003:1124:9301:672e:17ee:b374:8a9b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l1-20020a170902f68100b001885d15e3c1sm1374007plg.26.2022.11.27.13.41.56 for <v6ops@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 27 Nov 2022 13:41:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <9856bbab-a279-bc17-ce09-3674cfc4bc9e@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:41:54 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <BL0PR05MB5316CD2222C6E839A9E43F26AE099@BL0PR05MB5316.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR05MB5316CD2222C6E839A9E43F26AE099@BL0PR05MB5316.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/hHfIPNBkG2N4L9KpVdEyqx0ptzM>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] WG Call For Adoption: draft-xie-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay-05
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 27 Nov 2022 21:42:02 -0000

This is an interesting topic and it seems useful for the WG to work on it.

I have some general questions about the intent and scope of the draft. I have not done a detailed technical review.

Is the intention to describe existing deployment(s) or to propose future deployment? If it's the first case, it would be nice to have an Implementation Status section per RFC7942. If it's the second case, we'll need to be very careful about what the word "should" means
(and, assuming it's Informational, the one occurrence of SHOULD may be problematic).

I have a question about scope after reading the scenarios in section 3 "Focus on IPv6-only Networks". Why do scenarios 1-3 all say "hosted in cloud data centers"? Surely they should apply to servers anywhere. Also, why does scenario 4 mention "cloud"? It would apply to any data center anywhere.

I find scenario 7 rather vague. I can't see any further references to 5G (or scenario 6, IXPs) in the draft. Which of scenarios 1-7 does the draft cover? This should probably be stated in section 3.

I noticed one detail in section 6.1 "Overview": the address examples 2001:db8::c000:221 etc. could be written 2001:db8::192.0.2.33 etc. That format exists precisely for cases like this.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 19-Nov-22 10:53, Ron Bonica wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> This message initiates a WG call for adoption for draft-xie-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay-05. To accommodate the American holiday, the call for adoption will end on December 9, 2022.
> 
>                                                         Ron
> 
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email