Re: [IPv6] Adoption call for draft-bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis

[IPv6 <[e-mail]>]

Lack of imagination (or maybe cursed knowledge) doesn't mean it only solves a single problem. ;-)

It also solves something of an edge case where a leaf site is numbered off of a core site's static address space, but needs selective local internet break-out for bandwidth-intensive workloads (which aren't desired to be backhauled through the core site).

(Sorry if it sounds niche; I didn't invent this construct. -_- )

- Jima
________________________________________
From: ipv6 <[e-mail]> on behalf of Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 19:19
To: Nick Buraglio <[e-mail]>
Cc: IPv6 List <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] Adoption call for draft-bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis
 
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 11:32 PM Nick Buraglio <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
Agreed, happiness should not determine success. From what I have seen (which is admittedly limited) moving from experimental to a "higher level" RFC is typically accompanied by something like a deployment status document, e.g. the SRv6 deployment status doc here https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status

I think it's really important  to distinguish between "this draft solves a problem" and "this draft solves a problem that can't be solved already" and "this experiment has succeed and we can promote the document to informational or standards-track."

I think we can all agree that this draft solves a problem. I think it solves exactly one problem: allowing sites to keep stable internal addressing in the face of renumbering by ISPs and/or changing ISPs.

However, this problem can be addressed the way 7084 currently solves it: by numbering the internal network with a stable ULA and hosting services on addresses within that ULA rather than on a temporary GUA provided by the ISP.

Problems NPTV6 does not solve:

* MHMP (although it solves some aspects)
* Internal address privacy

So I don't actually think this document does anything useful for the Internet community. I don't mind that there is a document that describes NPTv6, but I don't think it should be standards track or informational, and I don't think IETF documents should normatively reference it.

Regarding experiments, at least from a scientific perspective, an experiment needs to have a control group. If we wanted to know whether NPTv6 solved the problem in an easier way than dual ULA/GUA, we would want to set up an experiment where some sites continued to use IPv4, some used NPTv6, and some used ULA/GUA. As far as I know, no such experiment has been done, and no such comparison has been documented.

I think the presentation Paulo has just done is the most interesting, but what we are not seeing is an answer to the question "how's it going, what problems do you have, etc."