Subject: Re: [lisp] IPv6 UDP checksum issue

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:33:10 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>

    > Alternatively, you could pick a different encapsulation

Dino, why don't we just drop the 'inside IPv6' encapsulations from the spec?
I.e. keep only IPv4 in IPv4 and IPv6 in IPv4? The IPv6 encapsulations could be
documented in a short non-IETF note that's posted on a personal web page
somewhere. (I'm assuming here that there are a few ISPs who'd actually want to
run inside IPv6, otherwise we could just drop them entirely.)

	Noel

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:14:05 -0700

Because we want to make all combinations work. Because we want IPv6 to  
be real.

Why move it to another draft when the same contention will occur.

The opponents just have to face the music. And if they are going to  
take issue with this, what about the bigger more critical issues? Will  
those take decades to resolve? Don't we have a deployment deadline for  
IPv6?

Dino

On Jul 30, 2009, at 4:33 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 03:34:25 -0400

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 3:14 AM, Dino Farinacci<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Because we want to make all combinations work. Because we want IPv6 to be
> real.
>
> The opponents just have to face the music. And if they are going to take
> issue with this, what about the bigger more critical issues? Will those take
> decades to resolve? Don't we have a deployment deadline for IPv6?

yes, ~5-7yrs before ipv4 free-pool run-out... wait that was 4-6 years ago.