IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment

Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net> Sat, 09 August 2014 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <ross@eircom.net>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A117E1A001A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Aug 2014 12:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.133
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.133 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] autolearn=ham
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 rlXZ1487hmVr for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Aug 2014 12:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail06.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (mail06.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net [159.134.118.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B24EB1A02BE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Aug 2014 12:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 30586 messnum 12535637 invoked from network[213.94.190.14/avas02.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net]); 9 Aug 2014 19:08:12 -0000
Received: from avas02.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (213.94.190.14) by mail06.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (qp 30586) with SMTP; 9 Aug 2014 19:08:12 -0000
Received: from mac1.home.ross.net ([159.134.196.35]) by avas02.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net with Cloudmark Gateway id cj891o00e0mJ9Tz01j8Cm9; Sat, 09 Aug 2014 20:08:12 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net>
In-Reply-To: <53E35B3D.3080903@fud.no>
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2014 20:07:56 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3A1BBD31-FEE7-4656-8C5F-041A959BA0A6@eircom.net>
References: <256EAE0B-5C11-42C7-BCA1-CEC7EE6713A7@cisco.com> <53DFD634.4020304@fud.no> <53E0C548.9050706@fud.no> <5C9FC57A-0DA5-4D36-84AE-CF1D6D17FB44@eircom.net> <53E1C587.4000506@fud.no> <3EC4EB99-F877-478D-BFE6-959F58127579@eircom.net> <53E35B3D.3080903@fud.no>
To: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/yQN7nJZy95bp-JFbhZv4jvK0el0
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 09 Aug 2014 19:08:21 -0000

On 7 Aug 2014, at 11:55, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote
> what do you think about this?
> 
> http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/toreanderson/ietf/blob/master/siit-dc.html#rfc.appendix.B

I’m still liking it, as the advantages of an IPv6-only DC will be high.

How about the case of an IPv6-only DC network with multiple separate SIIT-DC translation prefixes (mentioned in Sec 3.4). Which translation prefix will be used in the case where DNS64 (Sec 3.3) is also being used? It seems like DNS64 might only work easily with a single translation prefix. 

Ross

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email