Re: [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

Well, yes, but let me carefully comment here. A problem statement is a question; an FAQ is a set of answers. If the problem statement is "we have some basic questions and need some answers", OK, the FAQ is both question and answer. If the problem statement is something else - which I would expect the IESG to want it to be if they are going to allocate time for a BOF in Beijing - then an FAQ would be part of the response but not the entire response, and I would expect it to be separate from and responsive to the problem statement.

Since I haven't seen a draft of the problem statement, it's hard for me to assess that, and hard for me to contribute to the effort...

On Aug 17, 2010, at 12:12 AM, Tina TSOU wrote:

> It can also be part of the draft-lee-v4tov6transition-problem-statement, which we are working on.
> 
> 
> B. R.
> Tina
> http://tinatsou.weebly.com/index.html
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Baker" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 2:59 PM
> Subject: Re: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC
> 
> 
> Thanks very much, Kawmura-san. As you say, some of these questions are not worthy of an operator, but many are important to all of them. If we can get all of the questions on the table, I'm sure we can build a draft that we might call an "IPv6 Deployment FAQ". I wonder if you would be willing to co-author it with me?
> 
> On Aug 16, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Seiichi Kawamura wrote:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> Hi Fred
>> 
>> Fred Baker wrote:
>>> We have a transition guideline in last call in the IPv6 Operations Working Group. Let me take this opportunity to invite all of us to join [e-mail] if we have not, read the document, and comment on it on [e-mail] in the context of that last call.
>>> 
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines
>>> "Guidelines for Using IPv6 Transition Mechanisms", Jari Arkko, Fred
>>> Baker, 12-Jul-10
>>> 
>>> I gather that the operators on this list are of the opinion that the documents on the table, which include that one and the documents it refers to - especially
>>> 
>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4213.txt
>>> 4213 Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers. E.
>>>    Nordmark, R. Gilligan. October 2005. (Format: TXT=58575 bytes)
>>>    (Obsoletes RFC2893) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
>>> 
>>> but also various other RFCs and Internet Drafts - don't give them the guidance they are looking for. On this list, would it be appropriate to ask operators to tell us what questions remain on the table?
>> 
>> Here's my answer to this question.
>> 
>> Opertors who have not yet deployed IPv6,
>> don't know what to do at all. Some want
>> guidelines like, go and get a /32,
>> register it in an IRR (if they do so with IPv4),
>> check if your router supports IPv6, and if not
>> choose a transition deployment model, route
>> the prefix, buy transit, and finally bring some server up
>> so the world can see you that you have IPv6.
>> This is ISP 101 stuff that any operator should know,
>> but some request this kind of guidance.
>> I don't really see value in having a document
>> that describes all these steps.
>> 
>> However, many operators who have just started and have
>> at least some knowledge of what IPv6 is, want to know
>> traps in advance. This I think is quite important.
>> The differences between IPv4 and IPv6 that everyone stubles through.
>> I've been asked these same questions over and over again.
>> 
>> How do you assign an address in your network?
>>  (recommended prefix length and value of interface ID)
>> How do you use link-local?
>> Is there RFC1918 space in IPv6?
>> Is there such a thing as secondary address with IPv6?
>> What's the BGP filtering boundary in IPv6 compimenting the /24 in IPv4?
>> Is there a filtering guideline for IPv6?
>> 
>> Operators with more experience have more specific thoughts.
>> 
>> Why does OSPFv3 not display global scope address associated with the interface?
>> Why is VRRPv3's global VIP optional and not implemented by some?
>> What FIB size should we expect with IPv6?
>> Are broacasts with IPv4 and ND with IPv6 treated the same way in my L2 switch?
>> How should be use rDNS with IPv6?
>> 
>> To summarize my long and rough comments (sorry)
>> "what is the difference between IPv6 and IPv4 that we should be aware of?"
>> is the question that many tend to ask and is always a popular topic
>> in my local NOG (JANOG).
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Seiichi
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> If, for example, operators are looking for a document that describes how to use IPv4/IPv4 NATs to extend the IPv4 domain while the deploy IPv6, so that their customers continue to have some level of IPv4 support during the transition, I wonder to what extent
>>> 
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn
>>> "An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition", Sheng
>>> Jiang, Dayong Guo, Brian Carpenter, 18-Jun-10
>>> 
>>> addresses their questions. I have scheduled it for IPv6 Operations Working Group last Call starting on the 12th of September, but would be happy to see comments on [e-mail] prior to that.
>>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>>> From: Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
>>>> Date: August 15, 2010 11:00:04 AM PDT
>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC
>>>> 
>>>> This is to initiate a two week working group last call of draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines. Please read it now. If you find nits (spelling errors, minor suggested wording changes, etc), comment to the authors; if you find greater issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or finding additional issues that need to be addressed, please post your comments to the list.
>>>> 
>>>> We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the document as well as its content. If you have read the document and believe it to be of operational utility, that is also an important comment to make.
>>> 
>>> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
>> 
>> iEYEARECAAYFAkxqFPIACgkQcrhTYfxyMkKR8ACeMWWs4R9yi1JO4VGrx5QrG0vV
>> 1lwAn16RYKVoGzEw3zJc67IgdvBH/7t+
>> =826C
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
>