IETF Logo Mail Archive

draft-nakibly-v6ops-tunnel-loops discussion

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Tue, 20 July 2010 17:58 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F05163A6B35 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.03
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.03 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.535, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dU-CEZgCzy+H for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 063823A6A92 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1ObGwJ-0006MK-Vx for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:49:12 +0000
Received: from [171.71.176.117] (helo=sj-iport-6.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <fred@cisco.com>) id 1ObGwG-0006Lp-S4 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:49:08 +0000
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAAN9RUyrRN+J/2dsb2JhbACfbXGld5s1hTIEhACEWQ
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jul 2010 17:42:06 +0000
Received: from stealth-10-32-244-222.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-222.cisco.com [10.32.244.222]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6KHfwWD025627 for <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:42:00 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by stealth-10-32-244-222.cisco.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:42:06 -0700
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by stealth-10-32-244-222.cisco.com on Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:42:06 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Subject: draft-nakibly-v6ops-tunnel-loops discussion
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C45171D.8090506@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:41:52 -0700
Message-Id: <A80AF5F8-5CE5-4E08-BFD9-8B1E4EC710AB@cisco.com>
References: <1975C274-CE6B-4A20-B6EE-87CE995CA8E6@cisco.com> <4C45171D.8090506@gmail.com>
To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> The draft doesn't recommend a choice of technique. I think that for the work to go forward, the WG would need to agree on a recommendation. Otherwise, the world will shrug its shoulders.

Following up on Brian's excellent review. Let's discuss this. In view of draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines and draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns, do we need this draft? Should we prefer it to one of the others? Is there something specific we would like this document to recommend?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email