Re: [v6ops] possible path forward with RFC7084 and transition/other stuff

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 21 July 2017 08:35 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 951841317C1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 01:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 vwK3ufTCWlxT for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 01:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x233.google.com (mail-pf0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::233]) (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 E69231317A1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 01:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x233.google.com with SMTP id r76so4726689pfj.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 01:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SWp3Yc6+/kKeERS1TRCOXgTGYYhYj/MuYvJwoU6pXFQ=; b=EqEwTG8NfPAG2gg+99LWPGXD/KAQ2u+hYF0bZbfiTcY5afg5KwYcuI+IcJiBWMNjwj 2EdcU4rq9NESs9SQ0nvoTpPxF0f0DNO2wNANHqc/dsf52LqtUCdigayR+8Wzud50JQ0E Akn2SHeRiNPwwfUBNofKK5YFHN1pyCWNkkG50pDA65BqmIncKMqnHWllUujIy2m3XEbf ZmYoNAbAvn3kqa0BB2XUHbp1pzAf0mMnzyfOM/r1DCykTnl3CSa3KBWB8UR5RinCrD9g B8PPFhJLboYqzl+lmamZumgRB1aGTFPara9qmoO9vwR3No3FzOSGT6YIPbGbC515Sm54 ZcOQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SWp3Yc6+/kKeERS1TRCOXgTGYYhYj/MuYvJwoU6pXFQ=; b=LnnjuDvsVqerCRVjaf7US6+htQarhrdk5uE2Ll/B/1+LRty6pcdnpswEPDnY0Vno0a grK79jhwHc7u7XzpHo39MoYP/2bXJ3AWJYx+9GHwUUIv8JjFz3ZggckbpoBTR1htZ0Nu 9Br0iqv6gYVrKxUqRJQF6d6iL72DeotrsS0/ZrDuBqHkMzaWmZFxfwjcBSycmMKyEtwB 7CiEnh+dF87DdIDVooRGbJeh4qP9UWxoTwpqiUTw8Eoq9g0dYihFA6XqeGfR/+nfxhyg 3kT4XkGhZqlPLQyWGYI9KC+tANMfDa8wEH4JBeVIW+koH6hgvOiS2FjiYxyVwEkTkpWP ZqBg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw113a8aUgNroKCdssmeqHWWI38X8nHGV12sMiJFfayXbs+DJf9vhQ zyfk8eI2WIKasC0ORkpIU89i6aDzJPjo
X-Received: by 10.99.107.193 with SMTP id g184mr6617927pgc.167.1500626143527; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 01:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.181.130 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 01:35:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <95CE57F2-8DED-40FB-B19C-565F47E215AC@consulintel.es>
References: <95CE57F2-8DED-40FB-B19C-565F47E215AC@consulintel.es>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 10:35:03 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1kDBAm=PctDJzjfUvoiLxfRF=0-68GRhFsUXvOe=QgaFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c14088a39dd0c0554cfc0cb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/wgngO-yACvRIR42NkEaIEht3mOQ>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] possible path forward with RFC7084 and transition/other stuff
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: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:35:47 -0000

Sorry, I got a bit of mental crosstalk between this discussion and another
one.   My main concern is that I don't think the HNCP text is practicable
right now.   If we are going to require HNCP, we need to say what requiring
HNCP means in practice.    I don't have a strong opinion on the actual
question you asked--sorry about that.

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:05 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:

> Hi Ted,
>
> I’m not sure to parse “making changes at this time”. Either we accept
> calling for consensus on “draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-04”, or we choose
> among the two options I mention above, or something else …
>
> HNCP support as per RFC7788, was already included in
> draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-04 and I think got support from the WG.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
> Responder a: <mellon@fugue.com>
> Fecha: viernes, 21 de julio de 2017, 10:00
> Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
> CC: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
> Asunto: Re: [v6ops] [*SPAM* Score/Req: 3.5/3.3] possible path forward with
> RFC7084 and transition/other stuff
>
>     I am not enthusiastic about making changes at this time, first because
> I think there's no urgency, and second because I do not know what "require
> HNCP" means.   Can you elaborate?
>
>     On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:48 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
> jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
>
>     Hi all,
>
>     We will like to know the WG opinions on this.
>
>     (I’m sending this email after checking with the WG chairs if they
> agree on it)
>
>     Yesterday during the bits-N-bytes here in Prague, a few of us (in
> copy), have a chat about a possible path forward with the RFC7084-bis and
> related docs.
>
>     If I understood correctly, we somehow agreed that a possible path is
> (let’s call this CHOICE 1):
>     1) Not change/update the existing RFC7084.
>     2) Use my “Transition Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers”
> document (draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-transition-00) as a starting
> point, which “extend” the requirements of RFC7084 towards supporting actual
> world transition requirements.
>     3) In this updated document, the transition requirements can then be a
> MUST, so vendors take it seriously.
>     4) I will include the reference to RFC8026 (some more text, as this
> reference is already in all my docs regarding this topic), so there is a
> “flow” of how the pair “ISP-CE” can get working IPv6 and then IPv4 if it is
> available from the ISP “as a service”. I think this can have also what Fred
> was suggesting as “IPv6 must be on by default”, right?
>
>     CHOICE 2 (to make it clear, my own toughs after waking up this
> morning, not discussed with the other folks yesterday):
>     Same as choice 1 above, but include also support for HNCP and may be
> something else if we believe it is required during the development of this
> document (for example it seems clear that if we offer IPv4 as a service,
> because actual multicast-based IPTV services run on IPv4, we need to keep
> supporting that on top of an IPv6-only access).
>     So then the document will be renamed to something such as “Transition
> and extended requirements for IPv6 CE routers”.
>
>     Tim, Barbara, James, can you confirm if I got right choice 1, or
> misunderstood/missed anything?
>
>     WG participants, could you provide your view on those two options?
>
>     Tim (Winters), could you tell from the perspective of the IPv6 Ready
> Logo Program your view on those two approaches?
>
>     It will be nice to be able to double check all the inputs from
> yesterday v6ops sessions, but looking at the etherpad I can’t see them, so
> may be the note takers were using something else. It is possible to access
> the minutes already someway? I will like to start working on this
> immediately …
>
>     Thanks!
>
>     Regards,
>     Jordi
>
>
>
>
>     **********************************************
>     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.
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     v6ops mailing list
>     v6ops@ietf.org
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>