IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] LISP support for draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00

Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> Tue, 18 April 2017 07:36 UTC

Return-Path: <tore@fud.no>
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 EC97A1317B6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 00:36:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 WxZDG-qPSuZb for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 00:36:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.fud.no (mail.fud.no [IPv6:2a02:c0:4f0:bb02:f816:3eff:fed3:8342]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3D911317B7 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 00:36:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2a02:c0:2:1:1194:17:0:1029] (port=36232 helo=echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com) by mail.fud.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <tore@fud.no>) id 1d0Ngr-0006Rw-Iz; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 07:36:45 +0000
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 09:36:44 +0200
From: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
To: otroan@employees.org
Cc: jordi.palet@consulintel.es, v6ops@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170418093644.16acdb43@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com>
In-Reply-To: <392D675B-73C4-40D3-81A8-A06907F5581D@employees.org>
References: <D8F5C737-B01A-4EC8-9175-C4921C0CD69F@consulintel.es> <392D675B-73C4-40D3-81A8-A06907F5581D@employees.org>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/mjLZ3L7S5G1ACaey4_8UoL9metc>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] LISP support for draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00
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: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 07:36:55 -0000

* otroan@employees.org

> The standardisation of the "transitioning off IPv4 mechanisms" is a
> prime example of IETF failure.
> You are proposing to carry that failure forward and require all CE
> implementations to implement _all_ the mechanisms in existence?
> 
> That is not providing "value add" to the community.

+1

> If I remember correctly that list is now: RFC2473, GRE, L2TP, LISP,
> MAP-E, MAP-T, 4RD, 464XLAT, Public 4over6, LW46, Dynamic LW46, ...

Yup.

Almost half of the requirements section in this document named «*Basic*
Requirements for *IPv6* Customer Edge Routers» (emphasis mine) is
talking about this plethora of *IPv4* stuff. It is getting ridiculous.

IMO: Nuke section 5.4 completely. Relegate the list of all current
«transitioning off IPv4» technologies to a short appendix containing
informative references. Let the individual ISPs specify which of those
technologies, if any, is a MUST for CE routers to be deployed in their
specific networks.

Tore

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email