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

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

> On 20 Mar 2024, at 14:07, Ole Troan <otroan=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Tim,
> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> Which is an interesting observation on the 6724-update discussion - in this approach you’re suggesting the internal device has only a ULA, and no GUA, so there’s stability without the need to choose an address pair ULA-ULA or GUA-GUA.  The question though is on that device’s addressability from elsewhere, and how that is achieved and at what cost.
> 
> How do you ensure a device with an ephemeral global address is addressable from elsewhere now?

I think this may be a trap, but I’m going to say the same way as I would were it global IPv4 addressing.

Tim