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

Hi Seiichi,

We are working on it now and will keep you posted.

Thanks,
Yiu

On 8/17/10 7:52 PM, "Seiichi Kawamura" <kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp> wrote:

> -----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" <tom111.taylor@bell.net> 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" <fred@cisco.com>
>>>> To: <v4transition@googlegroups.com>
>>>> 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 v6ops@ops.ietf.org if we have not, read the document, and
>>>>>>> comment on it on v6ops@ops.ietf.org 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 v6ops@ops.ietf.org prior to that.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
>>>>>>>> Date: August 15, 2010 11:00:04 AM PDT
>>>>>>>> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
>>>>>>>> Cc: kurtis@kurtis.pp.se, rbonica@juniper.net
>>>>>>>> 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
>>> v4tov6transition@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAkxrIM8ACgkQcrhTYfxyMkLTXwCfQaGZUSH+VXxyCWabxcB4ub7/
> EgQAnixNumh30suuQorJt0eVZbIc6VLJ
> =0HRl
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> v4tov6transition mailing list
> v4tov6transition@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition