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

[Duzongpeng <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

In my understanding, although the ACP is designed as transparent as possible, it does mean that the operator will never notice them in practice.

Sometimes, the ACP needs to be able to connect to a NMS which may be an IPv4 one. 

Sometimes, operators must be able to ensure the ACP is not misused, such as in debugging.

IMO, we can not assume that IPv6 would have replaced all the IPv4 when autonomic network becomes a common commercial feature.

Even if it is only a requirement from a small part of operators who care more about compatibility, it is worth considering.

Best Regards
Zongpeng Du

-----Original Message-----
From: Anima [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 4:46 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Anima] Whether IPv6 only for ACP? //RE: I-D Action: draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-addressing-01.txt

On 26/06/2015 20:36, Jonathan Hansford wrote:
> 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.

What is the harm if the AN products that they install happen to configure themselves to use IPv6? Since any router that acts as an autonomic node will be modern enough to support an IPv6 ACP with no manual intervention, why would the operator even know or care?

    Brian


> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> 

_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima