Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Autoencap and Re: Last Call: Routing IPv6 with IS-I S to Informational

From: "Philip Christian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 17:50:15 +0100

I have my own point of view, but I'm not seeing much support for it.
I wouldn't want to be the one that holds this up, not unless some other folks around 
here want to support me on the auto-encap stuff.
I don't see anything wrong with the draft as it stands.

Philip

At 0956 01/08/2003 -0700, Christian Hopps wrote
Folks,

Regarding all the proposals for making the IPv6 draft more
complex to handle mixed sets of IPv4 and IPv6, has anyone
queried operators on this issue?

When I wrote this draft I had no intention of supporting
disjoint sets of IPv4 and IPv6 routers within an area. I
specifically reference RFC 1195 [1] to handle broad issues
like this.

"In [1] a method is described to route both OSI and IPv4. We utilize
   this same method with some minor changes to allow for IPv6."

RFC 1195 was not designed to handle disjoint sets of OSI and IPv4
routers within an area either.

The draft is for the most part unchanged from 3.5 *years* ago.
It is currently implemented (and deployed) by at least 3 vendors,
and has been for a while. Interop testing has occurred. Are we being
academic here, or is there a real problem that needs solving?

Thanks,
Chris.

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

---

From: Philip Christian <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 16:52:04 +0100

I have my own point of view, but I'm not seeing much support for it.
I wouldn't want to be the one that holds this up, not unless some other 
folks around here want to support me on the auto-encap stuff.
I don't see anything wrong with the draft as it stands.

Philip