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

[Duzongpeng <[e-mail]>]

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 =-