IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com> Wed, 12 April 2017 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <bs7652@att.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 EA58C12EB3F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, 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 0YaRoc9MPLWz for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:55:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (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 90A9812EB39 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:55:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049458.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049458.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id v3CIj7rw029712; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:55:17 -0400
Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0049458.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 29sqhex53v-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:55:17 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3CItFCt005434; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:55:16 -0400
Received: from alpi131.aldc.att.com (alpi131.aldc.att.com [130.8.218.69]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3CIt9dQ005384 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:55:10 -0400
Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAG.ITServices.sbc.com (GAALPA1MSGHUBAG.itservices.sbc.com [130.8.218.156]) by alpi131.aldc.att.com (RSA Interceptor); Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:54:59 GMT
Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.165]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAG.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.218.156]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:54:58 -0400
From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
To: "jordi.palet@consulintel.es" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] LISP support for draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00
Thread-Index: AQHSstX9/aA+q42Pz0u3Y/nN6XijSKHBvWsAgAACzQCAABQWgIAAMIOAgAAEPYD//76fsIAAUwEA///ZnICAAFQ9AIAAAs+A///H2XA=
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:54:58 +0000
Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DB19E7B@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
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> <CAD6AjGQyatWEOxCpnOn8H+SxG=BWM=cBPaXoON6vA7dj7TNqOQ@mail.gmail.com> <72F5C80C-DDB5-422E-8FEC-7D4157722780@consulintel.es> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DB19757@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <E181152D-C33F-418A-85BC-4F7829BEE16F@consulintel.es> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DB19CFE@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <E3C498E3-25FC-4612-B565-98818DB60AB8@consulintel.es> <ED7BCBE5-C124-4BB4-B42A-D857EC85E484@consulintel.es>
In-Reply-To: <ED7BCBE5-C124-4BB4-B42A-D857EC85E484@consulintel.es>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.70.164.19]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-04-12_14:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1702020001 definitions=main-1704120154
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/r6rR7madYIIPqe-ijULTh8xUx-o>
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 18:55:26 -0000

> May be this will make it:
> 
> Actual text:
> The CE router MAY support 6in4 functionality.  If 6rd is implemented,
> 6in4 MUST be supported as well.
> 
> 
> New text:
> The CE router MAY support 6in4 functionality.  If 6rd is implemented,
> 6in4 is already supported as well, as the underlying protocol/technology is
> the same, being the only difference, having the mention of “6in4”
> in the GUI/CLI (just an example) if it is being configured manually, or even
> stating that in the relevant documentation. In other words, no additional
> code is required for the support of 6in4 when 6rd is already supported

No. 
I'm fine suggesting that RFC 5569 MAY be supported. 
This RFC is commonly referred to as "6rd". Anyone who wants to have RFC 5569 functionality referred to by another name in their GUI or other user interface is free to do so. UI naming, character set, and language are not in scope of this document.

RFC 5569 does not reference RFC 4213. It has no dependency on RFC 4213 and is not the same as RFC 4213. These are 2 distinct and separate RFCs.
I will not support any linkage of these 2 RFCs in a 7084-bis.
This would impact my company and the requirements we use in CE router procurement directly (making it impossible for us to use 7084-bis as a reference directly or through BBF TR-124).

If there's someone who wants RFC 4213, let them justify it without trying to add expense and complexity to my CE routers.
Barbara

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email