Re: [v4tov6transition] a few quick reviews of the documents for today

["Yiu L. Lee" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jari,

> I think that is actually consistent with the advice in our draft (but
> maybe we need to change something if that was not clear). On any
> specific part of the network, native and dual stack are preferred if you
> can do them, but it is indeed natural that most networks employ a
> combination of tools in different parts. My own network, for instance,
> has a combination of IPv6-only, dual-stack, and tunneled IPv6 service in
> different routers/links. I would have avoided the tunneled solution in
> one part of the network, but it was not possible at the moment.
> 
You hit the nail in the head. Our network also has multiple technologies.
Every time we tried to explain this to the management, they scratched their
heads and asked why we wanted to deploy so many technologies in the network.
To them, this is confusing and drive up the cost to manage the network. We
are working hard to balance technologies to provide service continuity and
meanwhile to speedup the IPv6 deployment. My wish is that all operators
could converse to a single technology for transitioning :-) but I have
learned that this will only stay as a wish :-( My worry is that the more the
confusion in the community, the higher the cost for the transition.

Anyway, our intention for this use case draft is to address the use cases at
least in cable industry so that MSOs could agree with similar technologies.
We hope if we could agree with the use cases and technologies, this could
help to train the engineers and drive down the overall cost (both CapEx and
OpEx).

-- Yiu