Re: [v6ops] draft-linkova-v6ops-nd-cache-init to working group draft

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Wed, 24 July 2019 21:48 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.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 D7B161206A6; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 14:48:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 7PUXA6UrQKwI; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 14:48:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (unknown [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6028F12063C; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 14:48:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:370:128:a458:6d04:5f3e:464d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6CA114E11B7F; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 21:48:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8CB61957FC0; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 17:48:36 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0m1JawKamy6LeTQwhDgPyr_778LZxYRakWfYqKsJONbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 17:48:36 -0400
Cc: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <10332310-81CE-4267-B677-ABAD063BFB85@employees.org>
References: <351E8A83-734C-448D-B0C6-212C09D564F4@gmail.com> <ea7438f2-b917-60eb-88bc-a375246a0cf9@gmail.com> <8f1c6206-6057-5ab0-c16c-ad8ff67c9457@gont.com.ar> <20190723191925.GF258193@eidolon.nox.tf> <1b6ce7f8-07d1-bb1e-7533-637cfd4ae85b@gmail.com> <3074B072-EA8C-427C-8ED1-55C5D5BE9448@cisco.com> <CAKD1Yr2KZ4nMtxWK5JmZbRtJNVFv_8Uf7RVz3Y5J1ccjQeZRTA@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB3565D0296C566032E6C2967CD8C60@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAKD1Yr0m1JawKamy6LeTQwhDgPyr_778LZxYRakWfYqKsJONbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/xcVT28OocfqZemX9jGP6wER7HCA>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-linkova-v6ops-nd-cache-init to working group draft
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 24 Jul 2019 21:48:46 -0000


> On 24 Jul 2019, at 16:26, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 1:25 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
> Sorry the response does not match the question. Do I need to reword?
> 
>  
> 
> There are a number of operational problems around the same root cause and that problem space needs to be covered in a bit more systemic way.
> 
> This way we can assess coverage of the various responses, tactical and strategic, impacting host routers or both, and I’m happy to talk solution later and wherever.
> 
> 
> I fear that if we have a discussion about this it will quickly turn into a discussion of what is and isn't an "operational problem" as opposed to "a good trade-off". It seems simpler to focus on this specific problem given that we already have a draft for it.

Right.
I would be happy to see a separate discussion in 6man about what from the work in 6lo et al we could benefit from integrating into the IPv6 core protocol suite. It might have been in Pascal's draft's, but I think we as a group would benefit from a summary using our (6man) terms for things.

Ole