IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance WGLC

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Tue, 07 August 2012 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 4765B21F867B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.28
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.28 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.319, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 UzB6w5y12Vv9 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64CEA21F8652 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=2015; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1344353266; x=1345562866; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=gEzNcqocYViXg7t8DCOSHzhmuy+P63ifTseI9mtUkNM=; b=NuR0oAE3ihCG1XMa4eW7s5keyjIxUFzebBcsTlRlAAK6wsmGQuTi/C9z fPuKwAsQYK4ntredZtE4lvGbDOEK547H0IIJIIwRdn5y3zsmcUHjj44bb JPdhpimK48rtu2LLtLiPMV0e32nkn+HywNihbcDneVb2a8EroQ/4Aaloc 4=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EADoyIVCtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABFuUaBB4IhAQEEEgFmEAIBCEYyJQIEDhMUh2sLm1egWYsPhg1gA45YgSCFUIEUjRKBZoJf
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.77,727,1336348800"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="109183652"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Aug 2012 15:27:45 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q77FRjkJ003860 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:27:45 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.97]) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:27:45 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Tore Anderson <tore.anderson@redpill-linpro.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance WGLC
Thread-Index: AQHNdLExhwHVQAJZkE+xzTTprvINyA==
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 15:27:44 +0000
Message-ID: <7FA29CAA-49B0-4C3A-BED3-1A81D92578E4@cisco.com>
References: <5F52A5BB-36F7-4CF9-9639-960C65ADFD4E@cisco.com> <5020C48D.6040507@redpill-linpro.com>
In-Reply-To: <5020C48D.6040507@redpill-linpro.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.116]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19090.004
x-tm-as-result: No--34.487500-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3FB113D2-1A54-45DC-8537-08C9A1FD3419"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, V6ops Chairs <v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, Ron Bonica <ron@bonica.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance WGLC
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: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 15:27:47 -0000

In the context of RFC 5838, OSPFv3 can now handle both protocols. So the operator has a choice.

On Aug 7, 2012, at 12:32 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:

> * Fred Baker (fred)
> 
>> This is to open a two week Working Group last Call on
>> 
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance "IPv6
>> Guidance for Internet Content and Application Service Providers",
>> Brian Carpenter, Sheng Jiang, 10-Jul-12
>> 
>> Please read it now. We are interested in, among other things,
>> technical commentary on the draft and the working group's perception
>> on its usefulness to its target audience.
> 
> Support.
> 
> One comment, regarding section 5.2: «It is worth noting that whereas
> OSPF and RIP differ significantly between IPv4 and IPv6, IS-IS has the
> advantage of handling them both in a single instance of the protocol».
> 
> I am under the impression that OSPFv3 also has this advantage (cf. RFC
> 5838: «Support of Address Families in OSPFv3»). I haven't yet played
> with this functionality myself, though.
> 
> Best regards,
> -- 
> Tore Anderson
> Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com

----------------------------------------------------
The ignorance of how to use new knowledge stockpiles exponentially. 
   - Marshall McLuhan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email