Subject: Re: Take VLAN usage as WG document?

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 11:44:43 +0100

On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 08:22:21AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:

> The author has asked if the document describing usage of VLANs 
> for IPv6 deployed could be taken as a WG document:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chown-v6ops-vlan-usage-02.txt
> 
> This is in the charter, and useful as an Informational document.
> 
> Please say what you think.  Silence DOES NOT indicate consent.  If new 
> work items are to be adopted, there must be active support for doing 
> it, and there must be people willing to review and work on the draft.
 
I just read the document. While the general approach is more or less
obvious once you think about the problem space (done this exercise 
about a year ago), this document has the potential to clearly 
document the benefits and pitfalls so that others have less to
think about and are likely getting a reasonable setup. 

What I like to see is more discussion of the trade-offs between the 
alternatives that do exist.  One specific item which I think needs 
more consideration is the IPv6 addressing plan. My experience was
that working out an addressing plan is actually more controversial 
and time consuming than getting an IPv6 router hocked up into the 
network. So a more complete list of the various approaches for
addressing plans together with their advantages and disadvantages 
would be much appreciated and add real value to the document.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 13:17:11 +0000

> would be much appreciated and add real value to the document.

Hi,

We are working on a separate draft on addressing plans for end sites,
from experiences in 6NET.   I don't think we want to cloud the "how you
deploy dual stack via a parallel infrastructure" issue with "how you 
address the IPv6 network".    So I would prefer to keep the two as
separate texts.

We expect to release a first draft in 2-3 weeks.   Input is welcome; we
have three authors to date.

Tim

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:07:32 +0100

> have three authors to date.

So I am looking forward to see that document. From my perspective, this
addressing plan document might be more important than the other one.
Right now, we use several internal tunnels for non-technical reasons,
so we do not follow <draft-chown-v6ops-vlan-usage-02>, even though we
considered the same ideas. But we like to implement an addressing plan 
which is flexible and allows us to gradually transition easily towards 
native v6 support within the network without much pain.

Personally, I have no strong opinion whether you want to go for many
clearly focussed short documents that cross-reference each other or 
a more monolythic bible which covers all the important things in one 
place.

/js

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:44:52 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

(co-chair hat on)

There seem to be at least 5 people supporting this, with no 
opposition.

Tim, please publish the latest version as a WG I-D at the start of 
January unless there are substantial comments before that.

(hat off)

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:

> Hi,
>
> (co-chair hat on)
>
> The author has asked if the document describing usage of VLANs for IPv6 
> deployed could be taken as a WG document:
>
> Please say what you think.  Silence DOES NOT indicate consent.  If new work 
> items are to be adopted, there must be active support for doing it, and there 
> must be people willing to review and work on the draft.
>
> The deadline for comments is in about 1.5 weeks, on December 8th.
>
> (hat off)
>
>

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:00:09 +0100

You have one more now (we used this since 3 or more years in some
deployments), sorry, I was unable to follow the list all the time last
weeks.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:44:52 +0200 (EET)
> Para: <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: Take VLAN usage as WG document?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> (co-chair hat on)
> 

**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.