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

[Paul Duffy <[e-mail]>]

Surely this WG understands the difference in the IPv6 deployment 
situation 2001 versus 2015.

All major platform OSs ship today IPv6 enabled.  Many major service 
providers are already IPv6 enabled or in the process of switching over. 
IEC TC57 (Power Systems) requires that all new and evolution of current 
standards support IPv6 starting 2015. The embedded RTOS space is a 
laggard, but that is also changing fast. IPv6 is the only way to go in 
the constrained / LLN space ... look at the work ongoing in the IETF 
6lo, Wi-SUN Alliance, Thread Group, OIC, uPnP, etc.  I could go on 
further, but I'm bored ;)

Are we really going to argue AMINA IPv4 support based on the situation 
in 2001?

Its my strong desire that this WG not in any way let IPv4 considerations 
delay your ACP work.  Lead us into the future.

Cheers


On 6/26/2015 3:41 AM, Sheng Jiang wrote:
> So, you are saying we should never have a IPv4-based Autonomic Network? It may be waste if all devices have been dual-stack or IPv6-only. But it would still be long way to come. I have been working on IPv6 since 2001. At that time, we were expecting IPv4 might be terminated by 2006. There are new features that are developed with IPv6, but later they are also adopted into IPv4. In last 20 years, the technologies in IPv4 did not stop. If ACP or other AN functions can be incrementally added into legacy IPv4 devices, it would not be any harm for owners. So, that AN is new does not mean it could not use in IPv4.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I am NOT arguing that we "must" do that. Again, as I said, we "may" do that with low priority while I don't think it harms. If there are clearly requirements from operators, we may rise the "may" to be "should".
>
> Regards,
>
> Sheng
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Behringer (mbehring) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 3:14 PM
>> To: Sheng Jiang; Brian E Carpenter; [e-mail]; Michael Richardson
>> Cc: Duzongpeng
>> Subject: RE: [Anima] Whether IPv6 only for ACP? //RE: I-D Action:
>> draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-addressing-01.txt
>>
>> Sheng: WHY??? Why would you want an IPv4 control plane? If you have a
>> good answer to that question, we can argue. :-)
>>
>> Take BGP: It can run on either v4 or v6, and it can negotiate any protocol
>> under the sun. the control plane protocol has little to do with what it
>> negotiates.
>>
>> Take ISIS: It's not even IP!!
>>
>> Other WGs may have good reasons: For example: interfacing end systems
>> where we cannot expect IPv6 support. AN is NEW, the ANI is NEW, there is no
>> legacy.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Sheng Jiang [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: 26 June 2015 03:32
>>> To: Brian E Carpenter; [e-mail]; Michael Behringer (mbehring);
>>> Michael Richardson
>>> Cc: Duzongpeng
>>> Subject: RE: [Anima] Whether IPv6 only for ACP? //RE: I-D Action: draft-
>>> behringer-anima-autonomic-addressing-01.txt
>>>
>>> Hi, Brian and Michael B,
>>>
>>> In my reading, it seems we take a wrong argument here. What we are
>>> talking about is NOT stop IPv6-based ACP. It is remaining on our priority or
>>> default choice. Technically, I am not sure the possibility or feasibility IP
>>> independent. If yes, IP independent may be preferred over IPv6-only.
>>>
>>> But meanwhile, a parallel IPv4-based ACP (or IP independent) mechanism
>>> should not bring any harm. IPv4 based Internet/networks are still having the
>>> motivation to improve itself. Particularly, many closed enterprise networks
>>> many remain IPv4-only for a while. Many IETF WG, such as DHC, are
>> working
>>> on both IPv4 and IPv6 simultaneously, of course, with IPv4 in lower
>>> preference and priority.
>>>
>>> "IPv4 management" use case for AN, running over an IPv6 ACP would also
>>> be an interest use case. It is valuable in the dual stack network or "running
>>> IPv4 as a service".
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Sheng
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Anima [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Brian E
>>>> Carpenter
>>>> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 5:32 AM
>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [Anima] Whether IPv6 only for ACP? //RE: I-D Action:
>>>> draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-addressing-01.txt
>>>>
>>>> On 25/06/2015 14:06, Duzongpeng wrote:
>>>>> Hi, Michael Richardson:
>>>>>
>>>>> 	I agree with your option. Perhaps ACP is not needed to be IPv6 only.
>>>> However, IPv6 has an enormous advantage in a cold start with all
>>>> devices assumed in factory condition. Every IPv6 stack will acquire a
>>>> valid link-local address even if no other device (such as a router or
>>>> DHCP server) is configured and there is no Intent in place. That is what we
>>> need for a true AN.
>>>>> 	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.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry but such operators are quickly becoming dinosaurs. Looking at
>>>> the current growth rate of IPv6, and knowing that it will take several
>>>> years for Anima work to be complete, I think those operators will be in
>>>> serious trouble.
>>>>
>>>>> 	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.
>>>>
>>>> Their traditional NMS could still be IPv4, and they could still see
>>>> IPv4 information through an IPv6 ACP.
>>>>
>>>>> 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".
>>>>
>>>> No, the answer is "IPv6 will be deployed automatically with no work by
>>>> you, but old IPv4 services will not be interrupted."
>>>>
>>>> Actually we should think about an "IPv4 management" use case for AN,
>>>> running over an IPv6 ACP.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>    Brian
>>>>
>>>>> 	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
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Anima mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> .
>