Re: [renum] An observation on 'draft-jiang-6renum-enterprise-00.txt'

[Jiangsheng <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Templin,

So far, in this version of our drafts, we do not distinguish the different reasons of changing prefix. So, your mentioned "changing from an IPv6 prefix 'A' assigned to a coexistence mechanism to a different IPv6 prefix 'B' assigned to that same coexistence mechanism" is already included. But we sort it in different dimension.

Regards,

Sheng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 6:41 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: [e-mail]; Jiangsheng; Leo Liu(bing)
> Subject: RE: An observation on 'draft-jiang-6renum-enterprise-00.txt'
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 2:39 PM
> > To: Templin, Fred L
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: An observation on 'draft-jiang-6renum-enterprise-00.txt'
> >
> > Fred,
> >
> > It's mentioned in RFC 5887 that one trigger for IPv6 renumbering
> could
> > be migrating from a transitional IPv6 solution to true native IPv6.
> 
> OK. But, renumbering could also include changing from an
> IPv6 prefix 'A' assigned to a coexistence mechanism to a
> different IPv6 prefix 'B' assigned to that same coexistence
> mechanism (i.e., it does not need to entail a migration
> from coexistence to native).
> 
> > In that sense, coexistence mechanisms are (IMHO) in the scope of the
> > 6renum charter, but I think it's limited to that; IPv4 is out of
> scope
> > unless "analysis leads to conclusions that are also
> > applicable to IPv4."
> 
> If by that, you mean that IPv4 renumbering is out of
> scope unless ..., then I am fine with that. My concern
> is for IPv6 renumbering.
> 
> > Of course, this applies to all coexistence mechanisms, not
> > just ISATAP.
> 
> I mention ISATAP only within the context of enterprise
> networks, which is the domain of analysis of the document
> in question.
> 
> > I agree that mentioning renumbering from a coexistence solution to
> > a native solution is reasonable, as it may lead to specific items in
> > the gap analysis.
> 
> Should also include changing from IPv6 prefix 'A' to
> IPv6 prefix 'B' while not changing from coexistence
> to native.
> 
> Thanks - Fred
> [e-mail]
> 
> > Regards
> >    Brian
> >
> > On 2011-07-14 06:13, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> > >
> > > [[ Re-sending - previous attempt was truncated ]]
> > >
> > > Authors,
> > >
> > > In Section 1 of this document, we see:
> > >
> > >   "This document focuses on IPv6 only, by leaving IPv4
> > >    out of scope. Dual-stack network or IPv4/IPv6
> > >    transition scenarios are out of scope, too."
> > >
> > > This statement seem to me to be dodging a very
> > > important phase in the transition of existing IPv4
> > > enterprise networks into IPv6 supporting enterprises.
> > > Indeed, the document fails to cite the two v6ops
> > > publications on Enterprise network IPv6 considerations,
> > > namely "IPv6 Enterprise Network Scenarios" [RFC4057]
> > > and "IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis - IP Layer 3
> > > Focus" [RFC4852]". These documents clearly show a
> > > need to account for a mixed IPv4/IPv6 environment
> > > for some time to come.
> > >
> > > Also, in Section 2 of your document:
> > >
> > >   "The complicated IPv4/IPv6 co-existing scenarios are
> > >    out of scope."
> > >
> > > In the case of ISATAP [RFC5214] at least, I disagree
> > > with the characterization of "complicated". Indeed,
> > > using ISATAP, an entire enterprise network can be
> > > automatically renumbered by touching only the site
> > > bordering ISATAP routers when their ISP delegated
> > > prefixes from the ISP change. As far as I can tell,
> > > such would represent possibly the simplest of all
> > > renumbering scenarios. Note also that operational
> > > guidance for IPv6 deployment in IPv4 sites using
> > > is now beind documented in 'draft-templin-v6ops-isops',
> > > which could also be cited by your document.
> > >
> > > Please check these works, and consider citing the
> > > appropriate documents. Please also note that ISATAP
> > > provides a ready-made simple solution for enterprise
> > > network renumbering, which could also be mentioned
> > > in your document.
> > >
> > > Thanks - Fred
> > > [e-mail]
> > >
> > >
> >