IETF Logo Mail Archive

[v6ops] Sunset4 gap analysis: rfc6555bis, ipv6rtr-reqs, rfc7084-bis

Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org> Wed, 16 August 2017 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <lee@asgard.org>
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 7344E1320BE for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 09:27:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.618
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] 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 XS3lptF7-mwr for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 09:27:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atl4mhob17.registeredsite.com (atl4mhob17.registeredsite.com [209.17.115.110]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 338E6132630 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 09:27:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.209]) by atl4mhob17.registeredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v7GGRbnl017406 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 12:27:37 -0400
Received: (qmail 7308 invoked by uid 0); 16 Aug 2017 16:27:37 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 68.100.68.25
X-Authenticated-UID: lee@asgard.org
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.160?) (lee@asgard.org@68.100.68.25) by 0 with ESMTPA; 16 Aug 2017 16:27:36 -0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.2.170228
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 12:27:34 -0400
From: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
Message-ID: <D5B9EAB6.8125B%lee@asgard.org>
Thread-Topic: Sunset4 gap analysis: rfc6555bis, ipv6rtr-reqs, rfc7084-bis
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3585731256_1362582"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/p_tSe9qqrUkot9yAqrdOfOHPNbg>
Subject: [v6ops] Sunset4 gap analysis: rfc6555bis, ipv6rtr-reqs, rfc7084-bis
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, 16 Aug 2017 16:27:42 -0000

Reading through draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis-09 it seemed to me that
several problems might be resolvable in documents we currently have open:

Can problems 1-5 (indicating that IPv4 is unavailable, disabling IPv4 in the
LAN) be addressed with recommendations in any, some, or all of:
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs-00 "Requirements for IPv6 Routers"
draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-04  “Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge
Routers"
Or other drafts under discussion in v6ops now?
Or do we need new IPv6 signalling (RA?) that IPv4 is unavailable? That would
have to go to 6man. Or did we do this, and I’ve forgotten in my old age?


Are problems 6 & 7 (Happy Eyeballs and getaddrinfo()) addressed with
draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-03,  "Happy Eyeballs Version 2: Better
Connectivity Using Concurrency”?
Can problem 10 be addressed in rfc6555-bis?

Thanks,

Lee

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email