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

[Seiichi Kawamura <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Yiu, Tom

(Replying to both mails at once)
I don't mind at all.
I haven't seen the problem statement draft
yet so I don't really have a clue if those sets of
specific questions are really relevant to a 'problem statement'.
I'll leave that decision up to you.

Regards,
Seiichi


Yiu L. Lee wrote:
> I also agree. Seiichi, would you mind I include your notes to the I-D?
> 
> Thanks,
> Yiu
> 
> 
> On 8/17/10 10:20 AM, "Tom Taylor" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Agreed, we shouldn't be fragmenting our efforts.
>>
>> If that is acceptable to you, Kawamura-san?
>>
>> 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:
>>>
> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v4tov6transition mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iEYEARECAAYFAkxrIM8ACgkQcrhTYfxyMkLTXwCfQaGZUSH+VXxyCWabxcB4ub7/
EgQAnixNumh30suuQorJt0eVZbIc6VLJ
=0HRl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----