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

[Tina TSOU <[e-mail]>]

Fred,
You understood the procedures and how to make things easier much more than 
us. Brian does also. We see two IETF ex-chairs in this group. I'm so 
honoured working with you. I agree with you.

Now, the pieces come into a big picture.
- 1 doc: Problem Statement (Yiu et al are working on it.)
- multiple docs: Individual operator's use cases (Yiu, Can-Can, Lian-Yuan, 
Chris, Victor, Julien are working on them)
- 1 doc: v4 to v6 transition framework (Brian et al are working on it.)
- multiple docs: v4 to v6 transition steps/handbooks(should find a better 
wording, the answers of the FAQ is one of the inputs)

Just my 2 cents.

B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/index.html

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Baker" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 4:51 AM
Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC


> 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-----
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v4tov6transition mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition
>