From: SM <s...@resistor.net> To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> Reply-to: s...@resistor.net Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt> (IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable nodes) to Proposed Standard
Section 2 of RFC 4084 lists the primary IP service terms: (a) Web connectivity (b) Client connectivity only, without a public address (c) Client only, public address (d) Firewalled Internet Connectivity (e) Full Internet Connectivity And with the proposed update: (f) Version support. Does the service include IPv4 support only, both IPv4 and IPv6 support, or IPv6 support only? I don't think that it makes sense as it stands. If you want to wordsmith this, you could go with: (f) IPv4 Internet Connectivity. This service provides the user IPv4 Internet connectivity, with one or more static public IPv4 addresses. Dynamic IPv4 addresses that are long-lived enough to make operating servers practical without highly dynamic DNS entries are possible, provided that they are not characterized as "dynamic" to third parties. ________ WEG] I think that you have a point that this update is a little weak in its current form. I don't have a problem with some clarifying text, but I think that the problem with the above is that you now get into situations where IPv4 internet connectivity by that definition is no longer possible due to a lack of available addresses. In other words, each of the defined items in the existing section 2 are applicable to IPv4 and IPv6 separately. So perhaps it needs to discuss the fact that there are now multiple permutations of the items in section 2, e.g. where the host has IPv6 internet connectivity, but really only has client/no public IPv4 connectivity. Then we're into value-judgment-land regarding whether full IPv6 connectivity coupled with NAT for IPv4 is considered "full internet connectivity" or if only true dual-stack is acceptable for that definition, etc. Brian was the one who originally suggested this RFC be added as updated by this draft, so I'm keen to hear his opinion as well. (g) IPv6 Internet Connectivity. This service provides the user/consumer IPv6 Internet connectivity, with at least a /60 IPv6 prefix. Dynamic IPv6 addressing that are long-lived enough to make operating servers practical without highly dynamic DNS entries are possible, provided that they are not characterized as "dynamic" to third parties. _________ WEG] I think that this definition is going to be problematic. There are plenty of other documents which already define IPv6 connectivity, and we are unlikely to reach consensus on any definition that includes a prefix size, but I'd be interested in opinions on the rest of it assuming that the prefix size recommendation is dropped. Thanks Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
