Subject: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-01

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:00:11 +0200

Thanks Mikael,

Just to make it clear, I’m not asking for 6to4 support, so let’s forget it to avoid increasing the confusion.

I think you got the point here. 6in4 is a subset of “6rd” requirements/parameters, that’s precisely why it works with 6rd code. So, I think we fully agree on that?

What about this (I’m also considering latest email from Ole):

    The CE router MAY support 6in4 functionality.  6in4 used for a manually
    configured tunnel requires a subset of the 6rd parameters (delegated prefix
    and remote IPv4 end-point). The on-wire and forwarding plane is identical
    for both mechanisms, however 6in4 doesn’t support mesh traffic and
    requires manually provisioning. Thus, if the device supports either 6rd or 6in4,
    it’s commonly a minor UI addition to support both. If 6in4 is supported, it MUST
    be implemented according to [RFC4213].  The following CE Requirements also apply:

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Organización: People's Front Against WWW
Responder a: <[email-masked]>
Fecha: jueves, 13 de abril de 2017, 12:33
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
CC: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Asunto: Re: [v6ops] LISP support for draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00

    On Thu, 13 Apr 2017, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
    
    > It is simple to understand, because both, 6in4, 6to4, and 6rd, actually 
    > do exactly the same encapsulation/decapsulation (protocol-41), and 
    > exactly the same routing thing. The difference is that in 6in4 is called 
    > a tunnel broker (or similar), in 6to4 is a 6to4 relay, etc. All the 
    > parameters in the UI are the same.
    
    Not necessarily. For 6to4, you basically don't need any user settable 
    parameters. It's all well-known. For 6in4, you need delegated prefix, 
    remote IPv4 relay address. For 6RD you need even more parameters, 
    especially for the modes where you don't map everything into the full IPv4 
    32 bit space.
    
    So the UI designer need to take into account all these three, or the user 
    will probably be confused. Yes, 6in4 and 6to4 are subsets of 6RD but they 
    still require different code to do the UI and input validation correctly, 
    compared to 6RD. My opinion is that your text should be changed to 
    something like this to paint the minor difference in a more positive 
    light?
    
    ----
    
    The CE router MAY support 6in4 functionality.  The main difference between 
    6in4 and 6rd is the parameters needed for configuration. The on-wire and 
    forwarding plane is identical for both mechanisms. Thus, if the device 
    supports either 6rd or 6in4, it's commonly a minor UI addition to support 
    both.  If 6in4 is supported, it MUST be implemented according to 
    [RFC4213].  The following CE Requirements also apply:
    
    ---
    
    I am not really happy about above text, I'm sure someone can rewrite it 
    even better.
    
    -- 
    Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]

**********************************************
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.