Putting technology on the table [Re: Domain Centric Administration, RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic-00.txt]

Micahel,

On 2007-07-04 16:52, michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
>>> That MPLS with 6PE is a superior migration scenario.
>>> Or perhaps, that defining migration scenarios without the full  
>>> involvement of network operations people is an exercise in  futility.
> 
>> If the lesson we have learned is that the only practical way 
>> to handle and route IP (whether v4, v6, or otherwise) 
>> requires the use of an underlying virtual circuit layer, then 
>> much of what we are doing in the IETF involves an 
>> architectural delusion about the fundamental datagram and 
>> packet model of the Internet. 
> 
> All that the IETF can do is to put the technology on the table. It is up
> to network operators, public and private (and very private) to try it
> out, test the limits, point out bugs to be fixed, and ultimately accept
> or reject it. Over the past 8 or 9 years, this is just what many
> operators have been doing with MPLS and the verdict is that MPLS works
> very well indeed. Unfortunately, we have been a bit shortsighted in not
> realizing that we cannot live with only MPLS and IPv4 because we will
> run out of new IPv4 addresses by 2010.
> 
> But, given that MPLS works and works very well, it seems to me that a
> viable migration scenario is NOT to throw away MPLS and attempt to make
> pure IPv6 work right away, but to start with 6PE at the edge where most
> growth occurs (in terms of connections) and where we can run a viable
> business selling IPv6 services to financially support migration
> activities.

I don't understand the tone of complaint in the above. The IETF *has*
put 6PE on the table: RFC 4798 is a Proposed Standard. That's where
the IETF's role ends - this is one of the mechanisms for IPv6
coexistence, among which the market can choose.

       Brian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf