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

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

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]
> > 
> > 
>