Re: [Anima] Whether IPv6 only for ACP? //RE: I-D Action: draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-addressing-01.txt

[Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]>]

We never have a restriction said that Autonomic Network must be IPv6-based. The same for the ANIMA current charter. If there are customers want IPv4-based ACP or IPv4-based Autonomic Network, I guess we should also work on that. By saying so, I still prefer IPv6 over IPv4 because we are future network oriented, and I assume future network is more IPv6. If we could work out something IP Independent, it may be better.

Best regards,

Sheng

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anima [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Duzongpeng
>Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 10:06 AM
>To: Michael Richardson; Michael Behringer (mbehring)
>Cc: Anima WG
>Subject: [Anima] Whether IPv6 only for ACP? //RE: I-D Action:
>draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-addressing-01.txt
>
>Hi, Michael Richardson:
>
>	I agree with your option. Perhaps ACP is not needed to be IPv6 only.
>
>	Of course, an IPv6 only autonomic control plane is ok for all the services
>in autonomic network, and the solution has the advantage of simplicity as
>mentioned by Michael Behringer.
>
>	However, the network operator may be more familiar with the IPv4-base
>management.
>	In the beginning of the ACP deployment, the network operator may not
>be very confident about the decisions made by the autonomic network. Some
>kinds of monitoring jobs may be desired by the network operators. At this
>time, the operator may want to see some IPv4 addresses. So, perhaps we
>need to provide IPv4-based ACP as an option for these parts of operators.
>Otherwise, we can only answer them "sorry, we only support IPv6 here".
>
>	As IPv4 has been widely deployed, perhaps an IPv4-based autonomic
>network will be accepted by more network managers at the beginning.
>
>	Indeed, at this time, an IPv4-based ACP is not as mature as the IPv6 one.
>Thus, perhaps some work needs to be done at this direction. For example, as
>you mentioned, how can we get an address instead of the ULA in IPv6.
>
>Best regards
>Zongpeng Du
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anima [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Michael
>Richardson
>Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 1:12 AM
>To: Michael Behringer (mbehring)
>Cc: Anima WG
>Subject: Re: [Anima] I-D Action:
>draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-addressing-01.txt
>
>
>Michael Behringer (mbehring) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>    >> > IPv6 only: Autonomic processes should use exclusively IPv6, for
>    >> > simplicity reasons.
>    >>
>    >> I agree with this as long as it's an RFC 2119 SHOULD, i.e. IPv4 could be
>used in
>    >> extraordinary circumstances. The GDNP design is fundamentally
>IP-version
>    >> independent.
>
>    > Yes, as long as it's really "extraordinary" ;-)   That 2119 says
>    > "SHOULD" means like you need a really good reason to not do it. What
>    > would such a good reason be? Just saying, in our implementation we
>    > often get the requirement "we want IPv4", and when you dig, the
>reason
>    > is that they don't want to deploy IPv6, and that's the only
>    > reason. Slippery slope...
>
>a) to respond to the immediate "we want IPv4" --- I'd just tell the customer
>   that it uses a custom link layer protocol that uses an ethernet type
>   different than 0x0800... just like CDP does :-)
>   (I don't think you need to "deploy" IPv6 to have an ACP...)
>
>b) the only thing I care about is that nobody is allowed to say, "but
>   mechanism XYZ does not exist in IPv4".  That's all.  I don't know if
>   we will need IPv6-only things, but maybe.
>
>...
>
>    >> Use-ULA: For these overlay addresses of autonomic nodes, we use
>Unique
>    >> Local Addresses (ULA), as specified in [RFC4193].  An alternative
>    >> scheme was discussed, using assigned ULA addressing.  The
>consensus
>    >> was to use standard ULA, because it was deemed to be sufficient.
>
>It might be that ULA is an IPv6-only feature.
>I don't consider 10/8 to be the same, as it is not statistically unique inside the
>AS.
>
>--
>Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Anima mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima