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

["Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <[e-mail]>]

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