Hi, On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 05:45:14AM -0300, Fernando Gont wrote: > On 29/10/20 05:26, Jens Link wrote: > > Fernando Gont <[email protected]> writes: > > > >>> The SEND requirment? No OS I'm aware of does support it and it only > >>> makes sense when the networking hardware and the OS support it. > >> > >> I think SEND is a smart spec/artifact... but I also think that I would > >> probably have a hard time finding a reason to deploy it. :-) > > > > Sure, but a) I always have to explain to people what SEND is and that it > > doesn't work when I'm doing IPv6 workshops > > FWIW, when doing workshops, I don't use more than two slides to give a > high-level overview of what SEND is about, and note why it's not > currently deployable, and while it is very unlikely that it will be > deployable any time soon.
"... SeND has never gained any ground, and I don???t expect that to change anytime soon. Actually I expect SeND to be forgotten at some point ;-)." from: "A Quick Security Evaluation of IPv6" https://theinternetprotocolblog.wordpress.com/2020/10/25/a-quick-security-evaluation-of-ipv6/ Hence I don't think there should be any mention of SeND in RIPE554-bis. cheers Enno > > (For similar reasons, I don't even bother with things like mobile IPv6). > > > > and b) I know people putting > > something like "hardware must comply to RIPE 554" into tenders. > > The effect of that would be interesting to see (whether it would push > implementation, or actually back-fire). > > I do think that, if/when considering inclusion of SEND in RIPE-554, the > fact that it is IPR-encumbered be considered in the decision process. > > Thanks, > -- > Fernando Gont > SI6 Networks > e-mail: [email protected] > PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 > > > > > -- Enno Rey Cell: +49 173 6745902 Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator
