[v4tov6transition] draft-carpenter-v4v6tran-framework [Re: a few quick reviews of the documents for today]

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 2010-09-21 14:58, Jari Arkko wrote:
> I am going through the documents in the agenda.

...
> 3. Framework for IP Version Transition Scenarios
> draft-carpenter-v4v6tran-framework-00
> 
> I think some of the text in Section 1 puts ipv6-only as the highest
> priority deployment model (and I'm saying this as a vendor of some IPv6
> only gear :-) Or am I reading your text wrong, Brian? I think ipv6-only
> is an important model and its importance grows as time goes by. But dual
> stack has not been dismissed just because we no longer have IPv4
> addresses, it is still a very much recommended model, too.

Fair comment. As we said in the teleconf, there's no one-size fits all.
That can be tuned in the next version.

> 
> I do like the framework model. Everything we describe in terms of
> transition strategies would be good to describe under this framework.

Ack

> The other thing that I wanted to say -- and this is consistent feedback
> that I get from various operators and customers -- is that I hope we are
> not developing an infinite stream of new scenarios and transition tools.
> I do recognize that one size does not fit all, but just like with IPv4,
> we need a relatively small set of tools and then the operators can
> deploy these in various combinations. Transition is 90% hard, boring
> work. We engineers, scientists, and vendors need to restrain our natural
> urge to invent new solutions to those cases where there is significant
> demand and a real problem.

Correct. Actually, IMHO, the last thing the operators need right now
is a confusing parade of alternative new solutions. We do need to focus
on areas where the operators perceive an unsolved problem.

   Brian