RE: API Discussion RE: v6ops Agenda for Atlanta

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>]

Hi Jim,

> > It is true that we did discuss the IPv4 mapped address issues in
> > Sunnyvale.   [...]
>
> Yes I was there.
I remember.  :-)  I was just reviewing for folks who weren't...

> > There was some agreement in the meeting that there are issues
> > with using  IPv4 mapped addresses on the wire [...
>
> I agree and was there.
Good, so the v6ops WG needs to decide whether we should produce
a document and/or make any recommendations in this area.  Thoughts?

> > The API portion was much more controversial, and there was a general
> > consensus in the room not to impose any API changes [...]
>
> What you say is true and that was the feeling.  My issue is that this
> was discussed on ipng and the apifolks design team. So what we heard at
> Sunnyvale Interim meeting is consensus already and Itojun and Craig know
> that.  So I don't see why we are revisting it again.
Obviously, there is quite a bit more history here than I am aware of,
as I am no on the API design team...  Now, I am better understanding
your point.

> But it feels like
> v6ops is being duped to bring it up yet again.  The problem is that the
> current API defaults are deployed in production and supported in
> practice and spirit by all but two implementations is my knowledge. The
> API is now not 2553 but an IEEE spec/std.
> So I sense politics here but if you want to have this come up again that
> is your choice as chair.  But we are not going to break customers at
> this point using IPv6 is my strong guess.
One point that I should make very clear:

The v6ops group is NOT chartered to make any changes to the IPv6
APIs and/or the IPv6 specifications.  We are chartered to identify real
operational and/or security issues and make recommendations to the
IPv6 WG, as appropriate.  In this case, we need to figure out if there an
issue here that should be documented, and then decide if we want to
recommend any changes.  From the discussion in Sunnyvale, there
seems to be significant resistance to any changes, which is fine.

Do you think that there is a real technical issue here that operators and
implementors need to be aware of?  Or, is this a non-issue?

> > There was enough interest and discussion in Sunnyvale, at
> > least regarding the on-wire issues that it seemed worthwhile to discuss
> > this again in Atlanta to [...[
>
> If this is the discussion I fully agree.
Well, we'll see.   I know that Craig and Itojun are following this thread,
and I'm sure that they will try to focus their attentions on the areas that
might need some attention from v6ops.

> Thanks for listening to my point and responding,
Thanks for letting me know what you were thinking, so that I could
respond.

Margaret