Subject: [v4v6interim] revised scenarios

From: Ed Jankiewicz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:19:02 -0400

I'm not sure we really got total consensus/closure on the final set of 
scenarios, at least before I left.  I assume the next draft of the 
Scenarios doc will reflect the discussion and outcome of the interim 
meeting, but I wanted to restate a couple things I said at the mic 
during the meeting and extend them:

1.  I agree with the fundamental division translation space by which 
address family is constrained, i.e. the subject is either IPv6-only or 
IPv4-only.
2.  I am not sure it is necessary to further divide the scenario by 
client/server.  Yes, solutions may/not be bi-directional, so it is 
useful to consider  "my IPv4 to global IPv6" versus "global IPv6 to my 
IPv4" to explore different mechanisms (e.g. what to do with DNS).  
Bottom line, I go along with the 4 sub-scenarios for translation.
3.  I definitely draw a distinction between a "network" constraint and 
an application or host-stack constraint, i.e. "my IPv4 network" only 
routes IPv4 internally versus "my IPv4 host/application" that only 
understands IPv4 addresses.  "My IPv4 network" may include dual-stack 
hosts/applications, but that leads to a different solution than 
IPv4-only hosts/applications needing translation.  I think dual-stack 
access through a constrained network factors out to some of the other 
areas already under discussion.

No need to argue this out, I go along with whatever leads to a sensible 
division of labor.  Definitely those with lots of IPv4 stuff needing to 
coexist with emerging IPv6 internet have different interest than those 
with new IPv6 stuff wanting to maintain access to the current IPv4 
internet. 

-- 
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research 
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or  [email-masked] 

_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim