Re: [v6ops] comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-02

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>]

Hi Barbara,

Agree, I was not considering dropping RFC7083 at all.

In RFC7084-bis I conserved the "optional" language status for the transition, so I still think this is the correct way forward. Despite that, I think if you look to either

1) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis2/?include_text=1

or

2) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis4-hncp/?include_text=1

You will be fine, as in both cases transition support has been completely removed and that will be a separated document.

Difference among both of them:

1) Is an “IPv6-only” CE, very minimalistic approach, for simple networks, may be even “smaller” ones that a home network.
2) Is an IPv6 CE, “dual-stack” support, including HNCP.

Somehow both of them are in the “middle way” between 6204 and 7084.

Of course, other combinations are possible … 

Regards,
Jordi
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: "STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail]>
Responder a: <[e-mail]>
Fecha: lunes, 12 de junio de 2017, 15:02
Para: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Asunto: RE: [v6ops] comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-02

    > Basically, we need to go back to RFC6204 (which didn’t included transition at
    > all) and even more NOT include IPv4 support at all
    
    RFC 7084 added requirements for MAX SOL RT (RFC 7083) to RFC 6204. In fact, this one requirement was responsible for delaying publication of RFC 7084 by almost a year. It was such an important requirement that everyone agreed it was better to wait for this than to publish without it.
    There were also a few other changes to RFC 6204 requirements, but that was by far the most important and most needed. 
    Therefore, I do not support reverting to RFC 6204. 
    When Hans Liu was distinguishing between support for RFC 6204 and RFC 7084, I'm hoping he didn't mean that CE Router vendors aren't supporting MAX SOL RT. I think MAX SOL RT did get added to the UNH-IOL IPv6 Ready CE Router tests. I'm hoping he just meant that many CE Routers don't support any transition technologies.
    
    The "Transition Technologies Support" section that was added was done with purely "optional" language. There is not a single mandatory transition technology in RFC 7084. A CE Router can be 100% compliant with RFC 7084 and support no transition technologies.
    
    I'm perfectly happy with pulling the entire "Transition Technologies Support" section out of a RFC 7084-bis.
    Barbara
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.