[BEHAVE] fwd:RE: draft-hamarsheh-behave-biav2-03 VS draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih

[Ala Hamarsheh <[e-mail]>]

Forwarded message:

>From: [e-mail]
>To: ([e-mail]) [e-mail] 
>Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 12:47:53 +0000
>Subject: RE: [BEHAVE] draft-hamarsheh-behave-biav2-03 VS draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih
>
>Hi again Teemu
>
>
>
>A quick reply, if needed I can give more extensive detail later on:
>
>
>
>We have finished the work on our version of BIA (we called it BIAv2) some 6months ago. Since than some other drafts have appeared from other authors, including another BIAv2 that was developed independent of ours and is very similar but misses a few tricky points we have tackled, and this BIH. It is probably not clear from the motivation or introduction, but we tackle many small practical issues not handled by BIA or BIH, like DNS involvement etc. As an example, a IPv4-only client application could not address and IPv6(connectivity)-only server application, as it would only have an AAAA record and no A record, and that could not be solved by either BIA nor BIH... We solved several of this kind of imperfections, trivial details maybe, but that would prevent BIA and BIH to be really used on a wide-spread scale...
>
>
>
>We don't mind too much about wether our proposal is a seperate specification, or would be used to adapt BIH... As an academic research group we absolutely need to be able to get official credit somehow however, as our funding depends on publications and contributions to standards (that requirement is not our first priority, but we don't have a choice).
>
>
>
>I tend to agree about the issue of IPv6-only applications over IPv4 communication, it is not a big issue... But as our solution was generic as it was, we could integrate that solution at no extra cost, so why leave it out, when it was more or less implicitely included without any penalty in our proposal?
>
>
>
>You are quite right about the tird option for BIH, it is missing. We had to write that email on short notice, and we missed it somehow...
>
>
>
>Kind regards
>
>
>
>Marnix
>
>________________________________
>
>Van: [e-mail] [[e-mail]]
>Verzonden: donderdag 4 november 2010 13:18
>Aan: Goossens, Marnix
>CC: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>Onderwerp: RE: [BEHAVE] draft-hamarsheh-behave-biav2-03 VS draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih
>
>Hi,
>
>The IETF’s approach for the generic problem of supporting IPv4-only apps (connecting to IPv4-only servers) is dual-stack or tunneling, e.g. IPv4 packets encapsulated in IPv6 (see DS-Lite for example).
>
>Have you considered adding considerations for applications that embed IP addresses in protocol payloads (i.e. for ALG considerations)?
>
>I would like to encourage you to review and comment on BIH in behave WG’s scope. I mean could you see BIH as a subset of what you aim at, i.e. helping also you to achieve your goals? You could then maybe focus your draft to extend BIH?
>
>In the future we will see IPv6-only applications for sure, but for time being I’m personally not too convinced there will soon be IPv6-only applications that are also happy working through NAT64 (those apps would not work in IPv4-only accesses:). Instead I expect IPv6-only applications that really require peers to be on IPv6 as well and dual-stack applications that also work in IPv4-only accesses.
>
>One comment to previous mail. I think the BIH capability table you sent should have third row (added):
>
>            Host                                      Server
>
>+---------------+-------------------+          +-------------------+
>
>| Appl. Version | Host Connectivity | Network  | Host Connectivity |
>
>+---------------+-------------------+          +-------------------+
>
>|    IPv4       |      IPv6         | <-IPv6-> |      IPv6         |
>
>+---------------+-------------------+          +-------------------+
>
>|    IPv4       |      IPv6         | <-IPv6-> |    IPv4/IPv6      |
>
>+---------------+-------------------+          +-------------------+
>
>|    IPv4       |    IPv4/IPv6      | <-IPv6-> |      IPv6         |
>
>+---------------+-------------------+          +-------------------+
>
>
>Best regards,
>
>Teemu
>
>From: ext Goossens, Marnix [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: 04. marraskuuta 2010 13:47
>To: Savolainen Teemu (Nokia-MS/Tampere)
>Cc: ,; [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] draft-hamarsheh-behave-biav2-03 VS draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih
>
>
>
>
>Hello Teemu
>
>
>
>>Since those early versions of BIAbis the draft's purpose been narrowed down to cover only the use case behave WG is chartered to work on. Hence your generic draft has too wide scope when considering the goals >of behave wg (IETF does *not* want generic host based protocol translation tool for IPv6 transition).
>
>
>
>I am sending you below part of the motivation in the draft why we propose a generic tool, and why we think wide-spread deployment of IPv6, especially in residential context, is bound to fail if not something drastic is done about allowing IPv4-only applications to communicate transparantly over IPv6. I have been fighting for years (mainly in Europe) the blindness of IETF towards PRAGMATIC issues, the IETF  sometimes taking a rather "idealistic" (but naive) technical-only stance towards issues such as multicast and now IPv6, and the focus of IETF on network operations mostly ignoring in the process the end-user's viewpoint.
>
>If you care to read the motivation, you will find that it is not at all about technical problems, but human and commercial issues...
>
>
>
>It may be that we have send the draft in error to the behave group, if that WG is too narrow in scope, but we probably had little choice...
>
>
>
>Kind regards,
>
>
>
>Marnix Goossens
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>It is probably important to give a brief analysis first of one of the
>blocking factors withholding the wide-spread introduction of IPv6 in
>order to fully understand why the here proposed BIA is considered an
>essential component in the unlocking of IPv6.
>At the inception of IPv6 it was - probably rather naively - presumed that all
>parties involved with the Internet would be eager to make the
>changeover and that the transition would happen spontaneously.
>It is now quite generally acknowledged that some human and commercial
>factors preventing a spontaneous transition have been largely
>underestimated. In the transition to IPv6 there are essentially
>two parties involved: network providers and end-users.
>The benefits of using IPv6 are almost entirely for the network
>providers, while the end-users have only potentially indirect
>benefits from better network operation. No drive to make the
>changeover should be expected from the majority of end-users
>
>(which includes application developers, that are working for these end-users),
>as they have probably little to gain. The network providers can expect
>benefits, but they are obviously dependent on the willingness of their
>end-users to make any changeover. The result is some kind of
>deadlock: no (commercial) network provider is going to force the
>customers to make the changeover against their will. So making the
>transition transparent to the end-user is the key in any transition
>to IPv6. The average end-users are not really aware about what goes on
>in the network layer, and even if they do, they usually could not care
>less. It does not matter much to them if their applications are
>communicating using IPv4 or IPv6. But, while there is no drive to be
>expected from the end-users for any transition to IPv6, the vast
>majority would not object to the transition on condition they can go
>on using their applications as before.
>While the first impression is that applications are not affected
>by the changeover on the IP layer from IPv4 to IPv6, this is
>unfortunately not true. The applications are using IP addresses,
>and hence should be capable of dealing with the longer IPv6 addresses
>when having to communicate over IPv6.
>Expecting all applications to be modified to be capable of dealing
>with the longer IPv6 addresses is rather naive. Apart from the
>"standard" Internet applications with rather good support such as
>web browsers, email programs, etc. that can be expected to be IPv6
>enabled, there are thousands of other applications, some of them are
>written by small companies (of which some may be out of business)
>and others are even "home-made". For some applications, Internet
>communication is only a side-issue, for example for registering
>and/or checking for updates, and upgrading to become IPv6 compatible
>is probably not a high priority. It is to be expected that a large
>proportion of applications will only be modified to be IPv6
>compatible when IPv6 usage gets into full swing. And even if the
>IPv6 capable new versions of application software are made available,
>it is again rather naive to expect all end-users to do the required
>updating of all the software on their system.
>The end-users MAY be willing to accept a changeover to IPv6, but will
>NOT accept that some of their applications will no longer work as
>before. From this observation it becomes obvious that it is
>absolutely essential that provisions are standard installed and
>enabled on any general purpose machine (the vast majority of systems
>connected to the Internet) that is provided for IPv6 communication
>and potentially has to run IPv4-only applications to continue
>communicating as before when communicating using IPv6. While the
>demand for mandatory provisions on every general purpose machine
>capable of communicating using IPv6 may seem a tall order,
>it should be realized that this approach is much more realistic
>then expecting ALL applications to be made IPv6 compatible:
>compared to thousands of applications that would need conversion
>requiring all application developers to follow suit, the number of
>communication stack implementations on general purpose machines is
>very small and is made by only a handful of developers.
>
>