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

["Jonathan Hansford" <[e-mail]>]

There are some systems outside the Internet that have no urgent need
to move to IPv6 and developers would rather focus on more urgent
needs.  Autonomic networking could well be one of those more urgent
needs.
Jonathan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" 
To:"Duzongpeng" , "Michael Richardson" 
Cc:"Anima WG" 
Sent:Thu, 25 Jun 2015 11:56:19 +0000
Subject:Re: [Anima] Whether IPv6 only for ACP? //RE: I-D Action:
draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-addressing-01.txt

 For something new like AN, where the standardised specs will take at
least a couple of years to appear in anyone's products, where we do
NOT have backward compatibility issues, where we do not address end
systems for some years to come, I personally think it is insane to
even consider IPv4. 

 But I think we do have agreement that we start with IPv6 only, and
just keep the door open, in case we need to support it. If the working
group wants to do that, I'll change the text accordingly. Maybe a
discussion for Prague? 

 Michael

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Duzongpeng [mailto:[e-mail]]
 > Sent: 25 June 2015 10:24
 > To: Michael Behringer (mbehring); Michael Richardson
 > Cc: Anima WG
 > Subject: RE: [Anima] Whether IPv6 only for ACP? //RE: I-D Action:
draft-
 > behringer-anima-autonomic-addressing-01.txt
 > 
 > Hi, Michael Behringer
 > 
 > I agree that the default setting of the ACP could be IPv6-based,
which may
 > make the communication across autonomic domains easier to
implement.
 > 
 > What I suggested is that we first have an IPv6-based ACP ready, and
define
 > an IPv4-based one as an alternative option.
 > 
 > Best regards
 > Zongpeng Du
 > 
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Anima [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Michael
 > Behringer (mbehring)
 > Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 3:31 PM
 > To: Duzongpeng; Michael Richardson
 > Cc: Anima WG
 > Subject: Re: [Anima] Whether IPv6 only for ACP? //RE: I-D Action:
draft-
 > behringer-anima-autonomic-addressing-01.txt
 > 
 > Re-reading my own message, one thing to add: Brian has already
stated that
 > GDNP is protocol independent, and it should be. Of course we want
to
 > develop everything IP version independent wherever possible.
 > 
 > But there has to be some default autonomic addressing, routing, and
for
 > THAT we want to look at IPv6 only at this point.
 > 
 > Michael
 > 
 > > -----Original Message-----
 > > From: Anima [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Michael
 > > Behringer (mbehring)
 > > Sent: 25 June 2015 09:25
 > > To: Duzongpeng; Michael Richardson
 > > Cc: Anima WG
 > > Subject: Re: [Anima] Whether IPv6 only for ACP? //RE: I-D Action:
 > > draft- behringer-anima-autonomic-addressing-01.txt
 > >
 > > OK, I think there is some confusion around this topic.
 > >
 > > A network with autonomic functions (we all agree that a fully
 > > autonomic network is not our main target for now) can support on
the
 > > *data plane* any protocol the operator wants to use, including
IPv4,
 > > appletalk and IPv8 (when it comes).
 > >
 > > The statement is for the signalling, messaging and other
protocols
 > > INSIDE the ACP, used by Autonomic Service Agents.
 > >
 > > Autonomic Service Agents will be exposed to a developer
community, and
 > > the vendors implementing the ACP. There is absolutely no reason
to
 > > standardise more than one protocol for this purpose.
 > >
 > > MichaelR is right: You don't need to actively deploy IPv6 to use
the
 > > ACP. It just happens. With one caveat: If you connect an NMS
system
 > > into the ACP for "virtual out of band" usage, then that system
needs
 > > to support IPv6. But that is typically not a problem, in our
experience.
 > >
 > > In other words: We're saying that *autonomic functions* (which
the end
 > > user isn't exposed to at all) are exclusively IPv6, but the
network
 > > can provide any service the operator wants. Specifically, an
autonomic
 > > function (running on an IPv6 control plane) may well negotiate
 > > addressing for IPv4 services.
 > >
 > > Michael
 > >
 > > > -----Original Message-----
 > > > From: Duzongpeng [mailto:[e-mail]]
 > > > Sent: 25 June 2015 04:06
 > > > To: Michael Richardson; Michael Behringer (mbehring)
 > > > Cc: Anima WG
 > > > Subject: Whether IPv6 only for ACP? //RE: [Anima] 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)  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...
 &gt