Subject: RE: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 22:57:20 -0400

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:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 7:16 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: Fred L. Templin; [email-masked]
> 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.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>

---

From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 12:22:23 +0900

>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

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:54:04 +0300 (EEST)

Thinking back after discussions with Jim et al, I have one additional 
issue to highlight:

...

> 	network.  keep it simple, stupid and robust.

There are two cases, I think:

1) network (ISP/core) transition.  Folks who feel stuff like IGP or BGP 
tunneling is really needed etc.

Most probably agree that complexity in the core networks is highly 
undesirable.

2) site/home transition.  Current "approved" toolbox offers no solutions
to e.g. provide IPv6 access through NAT's (well, it's a double-edged
sword..), and some other solutions like ISATAP may be useful especially in
large networks e.g. where admins wouldn't want to bother to build proper
dual-stack infrastructure.

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 18:02:53 -0400

> tunneling is really needed etc.

Is this really the case?  The large operators I have talked to don't
want any transition tools in their core.  They see 6to4, ISATAP, NAT-PT,
various tunneling mechanisms, etc. as a leaf network solution.  Their
core is native v6.

> Most probably agree that complexity in the core networks is highly

Agreed.

Brian

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 14:28:05 +0300 (EEST)

On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Brian Haberman wrote:
> Is this really the case?  

Yes.  Why else would they have been specified and (in the case of BGP 
tunneling) implemented by a few vendors (Cisco, Juniper a least) -- the 
customers are asking for them.

> The large operators I have talked to don't

That's my view too.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 21:09:15 +0900

>customers are asking for them.

	it really depends on what kind of network the ISP has already deployed.
	if they have already deployed MPLS-based network, they need some
	trick to reuse IPv4 virtual circuit (what was the name for it in MPLS?),
	hence the drafts.  if they have a pure IP backbone, we need no tricks.

itojun

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 07:25:47 -0400

- I think the idea behind having a small set of "core" transition mechanism 
handled by the "official" v6 ops IETF wg might make sense.
- but I also think that we are still in very early stage of IPv6 deployment 
(compared to the full blown IPv6-only internet that might happen in a few 
years... ;-)))
- which tells me that it is not the time to completly cut 
solutions/protocols/ that might fit in some environments. It is just too 
early for a so important technology for the future of the internet (i.e. 
ipv6).

My suggestion is:
- have a process in IETF (compared to Jim, I can't think of another 
organisation to do that, and would be not an overall good idea to do it) 
that would work on all non-core transition mechanism (i.e. mechanism not 
chosen by v6ops as wg items) and the goal, for now, would have them 
published, if agreeable by the process as either Informational or 
experimental.
- this way, those people working on products/solutions/experimentation/.... 
will have a forum to discuss these mechanisms and have a spec that will 
produce interoperable implementations through a stable document mechanism 
(i.e. RFC publication)
- based on feedback over time, implementations, "market acceptance: i.e. 
how successful this or that solution is used and deployed", ..., the v6ops 
and/or the IESG and/or the right instance in IETF could reconsider, later 
on, to "promote" one or many of those "experimental/informational specs to 
the standard track.
- I'm enough convinced that I can commit to spend time on this to 
start/work on this proposed process with the ADs/v6ops chairs/... if this 
is an accepted idea within the community.

To me, it is much highly prefereable to have interoperable implementations 
of non-core transition mechanisms that many specs that are floating around 
without any status and stability that will produce non-interoperable 
implementations.

Marc.

> 	network.  keep it simple, stupid and robust.

------------------------------------------
Marc Blanchet
Viagénie
tel: +1-418-656-9254x225

------------------------------------------
http://www.freenet6.net: IPv6 connectivity
------------------------------------------
http://www.normos.org: IETF(RFC,draft),
  IANA,W3C,... standards.
------------------------------------------

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 21:12:34 +0200

=> this is not true for cores using MPLS where some hacks are used
for IPv6 support (aka 6PE, etc): you can't say this is native v6...

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 18:02:27 -0400

Francis,

> for IPv6 support (aka 6PE, etc): you can't say this is native v6...

Agreed.  And I never mentioned MPLS.  The operators I am talking about
are using BGP, IS-IS, and OSPF to route v6 natively.  Some of these
operators have MPLS in parts of their network.  But, they are not
utilizing the MPLS portion for v6 yet.

Brian