headers
Fred L. Templin | 4 Sep 2002 01:49
Picon

Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

Comments on the new proposed charter follow:

>     * To: IETF-Announce: ;
>     * Subject: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)
>     * From: Steve Coya <scoya@...>
>     * Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:05:36 -0400
>     * Cc: new-work@...
> 
> A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Operations and
> Management Area.  The IESG has not made any determination as yet.
> 
> The following Description was submitted, and is provided for
> informational purposes only:
> 
> 
> IPv6 Operations (v6ops)
> -----------------------
> 
>  Current Status: Proposed Working Group
> 
> Description of Working Group:
> 
> The global deployment of IPv6 is underway, creating an IPv4/IPv6
> Internet consisting of IPv4-only, IPv6-only and IPv4/IPv6 networks and
> nodes. This deployment must be properly handled to avoid the division
> of the Internet into separate IPv4 and IPv6 networks while ensuring
> global addressing and connectivity for all IPv4 and IPv6 nodes.
> 
> The IPv6 Operations Working Group (v6ops) develops guidelines for the
> operation of a shared IPv4/IPv6 Internet and provides guidance for
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Brian E Carpenter | 4 Sep 2002 13:00
Picon
Favicon

Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

"Fred L. Templin" wrote:
...
> Summary - the wording in sections (1) and (7) seems to mandate
> lowest-common-denominator solutions and ignore solutions that
> provide a better fit.

It's hard to avoid special pleading (since the transition solution
with my name on it is in the list), but I do think that there is a strong
argument for concentrating on LCD solutions for the first wave.

We might contemplate a separate IETF activity for advanced transition
solutions.

   Brian
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Pekka Savola | 4 Sep 2002 13:15
Picon

Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> "Fred L. Templin" wrote:
> ...
> > Summary - the wording in sections (1) and (7) seems to mandate
> > lowest-common-denominator solutions and ignore solutions that
> > provide a better fit.
> 
> It's hard to avoid special pleading (since the transition solution
> with my name on it is in the list), but I do think that there is a strong
> argument for concentrating on LCD solutions for the first wave.
> 
> We might contemplate a separate IETF activity for advanced transition
> solutions.

I agree with Brian.

People already have problems trying to choose which cars to buy.  Guides
and expert knowledge help a bit but it's still difficult. It's quite much
simpler if you don't have all that many choices to make.  People don't get
stuck on details, and we can concentrate better on really pressing matters
(if any).

--

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Fred L. Templin | 4 Sep 2002 21:58
Picon

Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

Brian,

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> "Fred L. Templin" wrote:
> ...
> 
>>Summary - the wording in sections (1) and (7) seems to mandate
>>lowest-common-denominator solutions and ignore solutions that
>>provide a better fit.
> 
> 
> It's hard to avoid special pleading (since the transition solution
> with my name on it is in the list), but I do think that there is a strong
> argument for concentrating on LCD solutions for the first wave.

I'm sorry; the text of sections (1) and (7) I was commenting on refers
to selection criteria for *new* mechanisms - I had no intention of
labeling the set of solutions already accepted to the wg as "LCD".

Fred
ftemplin@...
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Bound, Jim | 5 Sep 2002 04:35
Picon
Favicon

RE: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

I believe Fred has made a valid point on input to the charter.  The one-size-fits-all is  not a good way to view a
tool.  This is a good catch in the wording of the charter.

thanks
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred L. Templin [mailto:ftemplin@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 7:49 PM
> To: v6ops@...
> Subject: Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)
> 
> 
> Comments on the new proposed charter follow:
> 
> 
> >     * To: IETF-Announce: ;
> >     * Subject: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)
> >     * From: Steve Coya <scoya@...>
> >     * Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:05:36 -0400
> >     * Cc: new-work@...
> > 
> > A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Operations and
> > Management Area.  The IESG has not made any determination as yet.
> > 
> > The following Description was submitted, and is provided for
> > informational purposes only:
> > 
> > 
> > IPv6 Operations (v6ops)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 57 comments |
headers
Bound, Jim | 5 Sep 2002 04:57
Picon
Favicon

RE: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

Pekka,

Your just plain wrong.  Do you think users are stupid?  Do you think they even care about what we say here in the
IETF work?  No they do not.  What they want are IPv6 solutions.  And they will all want different ones.   

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 7:16 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: Fred L. Templin; v6ops@...
> Subject: Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)
> 
> 
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > "Fred L. Templin" wrote:
> > ...
> > > Summary - the wording in sections (1) and (7) seems to mandate
> > > lowest-common-denominator solutions and ignore solutions that
> > > provide a better fit.
> > 
> > It's hard to avoid special pleading (since the transition solution
> > with my name on it is in the list), but I do think that 
> there is a strong
> > argument for concentrating on LCD solutions for the first wave.
> > 
> > We might contemplate a separate IETF activity for advanced 
> transition
> > solutions.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Bound, Jim | 5 Sep 2002 04:55
Picon
Favicon

RE: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

Brian,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 7:00 AM
> To: Fred L. Templin
> Cc: v6ops@...
> Subject: Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)
> 
> 
> "Fred L. Templin" wrote:
> ...
> > Summary - the wording in sections (1) and (7) seems to mandate
> > lowest-common-denominator solutions and ignore solutions that
> > provide a better fit.
> 
> It's hard to avoid special pleading (since the transition solution
> with my name on it is in the list), but I do think that there 
> is a strong
> argument for concentrating on LCD solutions for the first wave.

Then stated it please Brian.  Your really not responding to Fred's wording.
The market wants special solutions like ISATAP, Teredo, and DSTM and they are all being deployed by
customers I know of and will not share so no one ask.  Granted its trial networks but that is how it starts.  An
LCD solution is good but not for all cases. Fred's car to minivan to truck is a perfect analogy he sent out.  In
my case I require a truck to haul my guns and german shepherds around :--).  

That being said I am being silent on all of this because as far as I am concerned ISATAP, Teredo, and DSTM all
got screwed by the IETF process after years of support and work by the working group.  But that is OK because
if we don't continue this work in the v6ops group under some valid assumption based on the charter
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bound, Jim | 5 Sep 2002 05:18
Picon
Favicon

RE: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

also I do not consider 6to4 an LCD.  It is a custom solution for many users.  And a method that can be used by other
mechanisms to work with.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bound, Jim 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 10:55 PM
> To: Brian E Carpenter; Fred L. Templin
> Cc: v6ops@...
> Subject: RE: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)
> 
> 
> Brian,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian@...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 7:00 AM
> > To: Fred L. Templin
> > Cc: v6ops@...
> > Subject: Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)
> > 
> > 
> > "Fred L. Templin" wrote:
> > ...
> > > Summary - the wording in sections (1) and (7) seems to mandate
> > > lowest-common-denominator solutions and ignore solutions that
> > > provide a better fit.
> > 
> > It's hard to avoid special pleading (since the transition solution
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino | 5 Sep 2002 05:22

Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

>Your just plain wrong.  Do you think users are stupid?  Do you think
>they even care about what we say here in the IETF work?  No they do not.
> What they want are IPv6 solutions.  And they will all want different
>ones.

	(chair hat off)

	the comments i get from the people most is that, they have big trouble
	picking which ngtrans mechanisms to pick (for instance, which one
	to implement on their router, which one to deploy to their network).
	so what we need to do is cut down number of deployment mechanisms,
	and help people deploy network in actual use.

	as i said in IETF54 plenary, there's no need to deploy fancy IPv6
	network.  keep it simple, stupid and robust.

itojun
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Bound, Jim | 5 Sep 2002 05:31
Picon
Favicon

RE: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

I don't hear that from any user in that way.  What I hear is there are several good mechanisms they like and want
to apply for different reasons.  

Also the one we are missing in our thinking is the user who will deploy a dominant IPv6 backbone where the only
access to IPv4 is simply to reach legacy systems.  They are also the ones deploying trial Mobile IPv6
networks with Mobile IPv6 handhelds.  For them Ipv4 is to be treated as-needed basis.  They don't even want
to use 6to4.  They will use ISATAP to jump-start installed base.  They will use DSTM to give out addresses in
ad-hoc manner.  These folks will also spend money which is the largest hammer for any mechanism.

But the key missing point in our collective thinking is assuming this type of network for IPv6 will only
happen later during IPv6 adoption.  That is plain wrong.  Many of the users of IPv6 are building new and
emerging systems that will be IPv6 out of the box and the networks for first deployment.

What we need to do is flush out our assumptions on this mail list and see where we all stand.  

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino [mailto:itojun@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 11:22 PM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: Pekka Savola; Brian E Carpenter; Fred L. Templin; 
> v6ops@...
> Subject: Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops) 
> 
> 
> >Your just plain wrong.  Do you think users are stupid?  Do you think
> >they even care about what we say here in the IETF work?  No 
> they do not.
> > What they want are IPv6 solutions.  And they will all want different
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane