Subject: How ready is IPv6 - do we need to describe it?

From: Greg Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 01:56:11 +1000

Hi,

I was chatting with Keith Moore, and think that it may
help to provide guidance (a BCP) on which components
are stable and reliable for IPv6 deployment.

Perhaps it could be seen as a wrap-up for the IPv6 WG.

It may be possible to indicate the standard levels
at the time of writing, and indicate if there were
known remanant issues (or uncertainty) with a particular
protocol.

This would give a clear idea of how far down the path
to usability the suite of v6 tools is, so that operators
can consider the state of the art before going ahead
with deployment.

Does anyone have an opinion on if it would be helpful
or hurtful?

Greg

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 17:50:56 +0100

> Perhaps it could be seen as a wrap-up for the IPv6 WG.

I think any feedback/commentary is valuable, be it in ipv6 or v6ops WG.
 
Some consensus on 'gaps' before Vancouver would be nice.

> known remanant issues (or uncertainty) with a particular

Do you mean observations from operational experience, from interop tests
in 'clinical' environments or 'uncertainty' from a theoretical perspective?
 
> can consider the state of the art before going ahead

It depends what path you're on.  Personally, we see IPv6 as deployable now
in a dual-stack academic backbone/enterprise environment, indeed we have 
IPv6 deployed without adverse impact on IPv4.  We've been through the
renumbering process - albeit on a 'small' enterprise that you say doesn't
exist.  I think the renumbering gaps are more tool issues than protocol
issues, though we may need protocols defined to allow any emergent vendor
tools to interoperate.
 
So I think different people will see different 'gaps', some may/will see
none or at least none that are show-stoppers.

> Does anyone have an opinion on if it would be helpful

I think it would be helpful.   One result might be an ipv6 WG recharter?
Closure may be a little premature.

I'm not sure I like the idea of a 'political message' that IPv6 is 'ready',
I would rather see the WG tackle genuine issues, and I don't think standards
should be advanced to fuller status until they have been static (and in use)
for a reasonable period of time.  It seems odd to advance something that's
just popping off the -bis conveyor belt now, and how many issues did the
issue trackers track for those, albeit the majority being quite minor?   

That said, many people are deploying and running IPv6 today.

-- 
Tim/::1

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 15:04:55 +0200

This is the charter of the v6ops WG. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Greg Daley
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 5:56 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: How ready is IPv6 - do we need to describe it?
> 
> Hi,
>