[v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-transition

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Thu, 16 November 2017 05:26 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=1493446864=jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
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 B16D31201F2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 21:26:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=consulintel.es; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=jordi.palet@consulintel.es header.d=consulintel.es
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NLdvNiZ7ingH for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 21:26:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.consulintel.es (mail.consulintel.es [217.126.185.215]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60CDE1294DF for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 21:26:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1510809967; x=1511414767; q=dns/txt; h=DomainKey-Signature: Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic: Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding:Reply-To; bh=GcbJ2591z56YdyCRHwcJfJhA8Xa4MgBlxlz/YIFJI0Q=; b=kMaO0WVBkzZ0j DK97rB+FKmD3yoUJ3potjBGxXA3XjojbcmFbgi9EZfJiHi4ps0fWfUlze3H7hZo9 Gk2jgkAy+h978c8fo47KWQ8itdct3PRtaep42+7OFNfQs8WgnQKFqae3iYPVVZ/f rGAv0N2YSltQW/J5pUkijMUMMAMAKE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon; d=consulintel.es; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=VWJVF5w6uMLMGL66pz8LieIglg0kboflLQWQrnL6j2cc+88NHsKth17EwMO2 U9vE09RAHD1psiWYaWIdgaVOqzeVl8psmdxX9daC+swJl5ysFbBEPCMYD TfrYe1QZoHdX78SrZHlq8BLOq+53VSBV5ZvG/buzh5nDZGsTtPJY4k=;
X-MDAV-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Thu, 16 Nov 2017 06:26:06 +0100
X-Spam-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Thu, 16 Nov 2017 06:26:03 +0100
Received: from [172.20.60.6] by mail.consulintel.es (MDaemon PRO v11.0.3) with ESMTP id md50005625240.msg for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 06:26:03 +0100
X-MDOP-RefID: re=0.000,fgs=0 (_st=1 _vt=0 _iwf=0)
X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-HashCash: 1:20:171116:md50005625240::/CulAqK5JfUDj/R4:00000dDz
X-Return-Path: prvs=1493446864=jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-Envelope-From: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: v6ops@ietf.org
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.27.0.171010
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:25:49 +0800
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
Message-ID: <97062078-9947-416C-9449-22F4F6FDEB97@consulintel.es>
Thread-Topic: draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-transition
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/lB8CyY-AGLrvB3Qjz5Oas-juBYs>
Subject: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-transition
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 05:26:12 -0000

Same question for this document.

I will continue working on it, Hans Liu from D-Link, agreed to co-author it.

Some of the points to consider:
1) Don’t repeat text from RFC7084, just reference to it (IPv6 on top of IPv4 transition part basically)
2) Make sure to state that this is needed in order to support, temporarily, IPv4 devices in user LANs
3) Clarify possible scenarios for choosing one or the other mechanism
4) Clarify what is needed for the provisioning to “choose” one or the other if the CE supports several and requirements to make sure that the “choosen” one actually works (which is basically the way RFC7084 text is doing)

I’m missing or misunderstanding anything?

Regards,
Jordi
 



**********************************************
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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.