Re: [v6ops] senario of draft-zhang-v6ops-ipv6oa-iwf-00.txt

["Fred Baker (fred)" <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 7, 2012, at 5:51 AM, zveno.chen wrote:
>    The senario of IPv6oA is exist in Chinatelecom network. In our IPV4 network some of our customers uses a service called ATM private-Line. In this service, user's CPE device connect to core network by IPoA (PVC/SVC) , and uses stable IP address. In the future, with the development of IPv6 ,these customer will hope to transfer their service to IPv6,but they donot want to use IP access network(maybe they donot want to change their network sharply). In this secanrio, we think IPv6oA will be a choice to solve the problem. And upgrade a IPv4 IWF to DS IWF may be economical 

First, I owe you an apology. I was unnecessarily rough with you Friday, and that was inappropriate of me.

On Aug 7, 2012, at 6:12 AM, Maglione Roberta wrote:

> If I understand your draft correctly you are proposing a new interworking function on the Access Node, so you are basically specifying new requirements for the Access Node.
> 
> Why are you discussing this topic in IETF? Isn't this Broadband Forum's territory? BBF is the SDO that specifies requirements for Access Node and if I remember correctly this interworking function was discussed and finally not included in TR-177 some years.
> 
> If you think this work is needed, for the scenario you described, I would suggest discussing this proposal in BBF first.

That said, I agree with Maglione. Direct interworking of a virtual circuit protocol (ATM) with a LAN protocol (Ethernet) is not something the IETF has chosen to specify in the past. Reason: we have a defined interworking function between any two link layer interfaces, which one might use between interfaces of the same type for management reasons and in any event one would use between interfaces of different types. It is correct that by directly connecting the two devices, one removes the necessity of a two-port router; one does so at the cost of adding significant complexity to both the protocols, as your draft describes, and the functionality of the switch. Personally, I think you will be far better off with a router. And in any event, this is BBF territory; if the BBF wants to have IETF collusion, we can discuss that, but I think you need first to discuss it with them.