Subject: Take VLAN usage as WG document?

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:22:21 +0200 (EET)

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:

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.

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: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:14:08 +0000

> The deadline for comments is in about 1.5 weeks, on December 8th.

The technique described is one that is being widely used, at least in
European academic environments.   It is, to many people, a fairly obvious
method to use to enable dual-stack networking via a parallel IPv6 routed
infrastructure, but since many people have also asked how it is done, otr
why, this document was written.

The scenario it addresses is structured/managed IPv6 deployment per link
in a network with no production/commercial IPv6 routing equipment available;
in the case of existing networks using the technique, Linux/BSD routers
are used.

-- 
Tim

---

From: Gert Doering <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:21:44 +0100

Hi,

> This is in the charter, and useful as an Informational document.

I think it would make a useful informational document.

Personally, I find this approach "obvious" - but that's only because 
I've already been through the process of wondering how to bring IPv6 to
our VLAN infrastructure (which was served by a VLAN router that was
conveniently declared as "End of Life" just one OS release before
the general introduction of IPv6), and ended up doing it exactly
this way - the existing IPv4 router stays, a new box for IPv6 only
VLAN routing is built (which is not as powerful as the IPv4 router, but
sufficient for v6).

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  66629  (65398)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: [email-masked]
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:28:43 +0200 (EET)

> VLAN routing is built (which is not as powerful as the IPv4 router, but

(without any hats, of course.)

I also think this makes a useful document.  As with Gert, we've used 
VLANs in the scenario where an upgrade of the v4 router was not an 
option (because s/w was not available, due to concerns about its 
stability and performance, etc.), and used both separate PC routers, 
and "real" routers to act as v6 routers for a LAN.

We've now phased those out, because we moved to full dual-stack, but 
the situation is likely to come up again for others, and it's worth 
documenting.

However, it's also worth documenting the concerns raised by Heikki 
Vatiainen wrt. the enterprise document that separate IP topologies in 
the same links are likely to cause maintenance nightmares in the long 
term.  We certainly had those concerns ourselves.

---

From: Gert Doering <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:54:57 +0100

Hi,

> term.  We certainly had those concerns ourselves.

I agree.  It makes documentation and troubleshooting harder (now 
*which* router is that machine connected to?), and also brings up some 
security issues ("is the v6 ACL in sync with the v4 ACL?").

The security issues are mentioned already, though.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:50:23 +0000

> The security issues are mentioned already, though.

If the document is adopted, then we can certainly add a section on
limitations and operational issues with the approach, though those are
included to some extent in the text as is.

Tim

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:19:25 -0800

On Nov 28, 2004, at 10:22 PM, 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:
>

YES.

IMHO, this is exactly the kind of document this wg should produce

	- Alain.