IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Wed, 12 April 2017 13:12 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 EDE60129B15 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 06:12:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 UhZCqTkEcnKc for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 06:12:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta135.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEE69129B0A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 06:12:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr05.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.69]) by opfednr25.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 017E7180396; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:12:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.27]) by opfednr05.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id C031E20073; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:12:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM7C.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::8007:17b:c3b4:d68b%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:12:31 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>, "otroan@employees.org" <otroan@employees.org>, "jordi.palet@consulintel.es" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
CC: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] LISP support for draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00
Thread-Index: AQHSstX9/aA+q42Pz0u3Y/nN6XijSKHBvWsAgAACzQCAABQWgIAACXcA///SZzCAAAaJUA==
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 13:12:31 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E4C4D9@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <D8F5C737-B01A-4EC8-9175-C4921C0CD69F@consulintel.es> <392D675B-73C4-40D3-81A8-A06907F5581D@employees.org> <3BBFC922-85BD-49B5-B39E-227F191BD48C@consulintel.es> <729244A1-E7AB-4BA0-8B39-A6122D2C32DB@employees.org> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E4C3B8@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DB194A8@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DB194A8@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/n25TPzrNjaXUWzvtAAjQrioJn5s>
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: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 13:12:36 -0000

Hi Barbara, 

Wouldn't just be fine for those ISPs not interested in transition mechanisms to continue referring to RFC7084?

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : STARK, BARBARA H [mailto:bs7652@att.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 12 avril 2017 14:53
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; otroan@employees.org;
> jordi.palet@consulintel.es
> Cc : v6ops@ietf.org
> Objet : RE: [v6ops] LISP support for draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00
> 
> > I tend to agree with you but with a slightly different proposal:  pick
> ONE
> > mandatory stateful mechanism (DS-Lite) and ONE mandatory A+P
> > mechanism (MAP-E).
> 
> Because RFC 7084 is also used as a mandatory reference in BBF TR-124 (used
> by telco ISPs to help with CE router RFPs), and most ISPs have no interest
> in requiring capabilities that are not useful to or relevant in their
> deployment, there MUST NOT be any mandatory transition mechanisms included
> in a 7084-bis.
> Barbara

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email