On Nov 28, 2011, at 13:25 , Ronald Bonica wrote: > […] I will submit the draft to the full IESG for its consideration at its > December 1 teleconference. The draft will be published as a BCP if a > sufficient number of IESG members ballot "Yes" or "No Objection", and if no > IESG member ballots "Discuss".
Before I get started, I should offer my deepest and most sincere apologies to the participants who have heard quite enough about 6to4 to last a lifetime. Nobody is more ashamed of The 6to4 Problem than me. I have reservations to this draft because it A) gives explicit advice to mitigate the addressing conflict it poses for 6to4 sites by recommending consideration of I-D.kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel, which I would contend is even more controversial than Shared CGN Address Space, and B) it mischaracterizes the advisory guidelines in RFC 6343 with respect to the IPv4 Special-Use Addresses in RFC 5375, which in fact are not referenced at all, and indeed the language in RFC 6343, section 4.2.3 IPv4 Prefix Issues and section 3 Problems Observed, would seem to contradict the language in this draft. I could support this draft if instead it were edited to update RFC 3056 directly to clarify the interpretation of its IPv6 Prefix Allocation requirement in section 2, which currently reads: Suppose that a subscriber site has at least one valid, globally unique 32-bit IPv4 address, referred to in this document as V4ADDR. This address MUST be duly allocated to the site by an address registry (possibly via a service provider) and it MUST NOT be a private address [RFC 1918]. I would like to see an explicit recognition that the phrase in RFC 3056, above, "duly allocated to the site by an address registry (possibly a service provider)," MUST NOT be interpreted to include the new Shared CGN Address Space defined by this document. In simpler terms, what I want is a document that clearly implies 6to4-PMT is not applicable with this new Shared CGN Address Space. No, I am not joking, and I'm very sorry that I had to bring up the topic of 6to4 again. -- j h woodyatt <j...@apple.com> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
