Yes I fully agree Olaf and as David has also noted these N:1 VLAN deployment models exist in a lot of places and are not disappearing. Its also good that we don't force Service Provider with a given set of deployment models to change their network architecture just to endorse IPv6 which is not what SP's want to hear or embrace to roll out IPv6 ;-)
Alan -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of olaf.bonn...@telekom.de Sent: October-29-10 6:50 AM To: otr...@employees.org; David Allan I Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; br...@innovationslab.net; bob.hin...@gmail.com; Suresh Krishnan Subject: AW: Consensus call on adopting <draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-08.txt> I appreciate the decision of the WG chairs to accept the I-D as v6ops working item since it reflects the majority of the raised opinions and acknowledges the need for a solution to make IPv6 happen in a very special, but nevertheless often implemented, network scenario. Kind regards Olaf > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] Im Auftrag > von Ole Troan > Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Oktober 2010 10:33 > An: David Allan I > Cc: Bob Hinden; Brian Haberman; IPv6 WG Mailing List; Suresh Krishnan > Betreff: Re: Consensus call on adopting > <draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-08.txt> > > David, > > good point indeed. > > perhaps it is time for the IETF to acknowledge the fact that these > link types are common and to take a more architectural and wide > approach to solving and adapting its protocols to this subnet model. > > I'm concerned that we are standardising point solutions without > understanding the problem. and I disagree with the chairs consensus > call. (not that I necessarily think there are alternatives, but I'd > like to see a big warning banner somewhere, not just a "we need to fix > a few nits before last calling it). > > cheers, > Ole > > > On Oct 28, 2010, at 23:58 , David Allan I wrote: > > > A quick comment on the soapbox statement... > > > > <soapbox statement>: I'm biased against this subnet model > (N:1)... recreating PPP functionality over Ethernet, trying to create > user isolation on a shared IPv6 link, which after all IPv6 protocols > are not designed for. > > > > I appreciate the IETF has been kind of blind to this but > this kind of asymmetric Ethernet subnet is actually much more > prevalent and been around longer than you might think. In Metro > Ethernet Forum terms it is known as an E-TREE, support for which is > being discussed by the IETF L2VPN WG. IEEE > 802.1ad(2005?) documents one possible means of implementing this in > the form of Asymmetric VID (which I think is also known as private > VLAN) and this has been carried forward into 802.1ah PBB/.1aq SPB. > > > > There is also physical media that behaves like this in the > form of passive optical networks, which are p2p to the root and > broadcast to the leaves. GPON and EPON becoming a very prevalent > broadband deployment model.... > > > > BBF TR101(2006) is simply one instantiation of a useful > construct that has been around for years...and if anything will become > much more common over time... > > > > Cheers > > Dave > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
