Re: [v4v6interim] [46translation] [BEHAVE] "My" [Re: Proposal for new BEHAVE charter]

[Ed Jankiewicz <[e-mail]>]

I think what we are trying to get at with "my network" or "a specific 
network" is some handy handle for the domain with address family 
restriction that has a vested interest in translation and coexistence.  
While Fred is right that it is generically "an IPv4 network" with "an 
IPv6 network", the differences in the 4 sub-cases MAY result in 
different solutions:

1.  if "my" network is the one with the minority address family, "I" 
would/could/should be interested in bearing the burden of 
interoperation, hence a solution that costs "me" in time and money is 
acceptable.  As already discussed, this burden shifts over time from 
early adopters to legacy maintainers.  The burden is either doing it 
yourself or paying your ISP to provide the service and the addresses 
required.
2.  if I am the "called" party (i.e. a server) I have a vested interest 
in making "my" network reachable by all "calling" parties, hence a 
distinction between IPv4->IPv6 versus IPv6->IPv4.
3.  more generalized solutions would be nice, but it is easy to fail 
trying to do everything (NAT-PT) or build something that the motivated 
party doesn't need (e.g. someone with lots of IPv4 sensors, etc. may be 
motivated to make them reachable from IPv6, but doesn't need them to 
"call" or be clients to anything on the IPv6 side). 
4.  premature optimization is counterproductive - several solutions that 
each solve part of a big problem well can be combined and simplified, 
but one big solution that does everything not so well (or nothing well) 
tends to get worse in the patching.

I'd say don't get hung up on having a one-word handle to hang on what we 
mean by "the network that is constrained to one address family when the 
rest of the world prefers the other" but I'm sure that can be stated in 
a precise and concise manner in the charter, the scenarios draft, and 
for introductory context for all the solutions.  "Perfect" nomenclature 
is not necessary, but a consistent use of whatever nomenclature is. 

If I had to pick one word it would be "constrained" as in "an 
IPv4-constrained network" meaning (for whatever reason) that the network 
interface to the rest of the world is constrained to sending and 
receiving ONLY IPv4 addressed packets.

Dave Thaler wrote:
> The "specific" network is the one deploying the box that performs
> translation.  The term "MY" was used at the interim, although I
> agree with Brian that "a specific" is more readable, and is also
> consistent with the text that follows the "MY" sentence which already
> uses "a specific".
>
> -Dave
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Fred Baker [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 3:43 PM
>> To: Dave Thaler
>> Cc: Marc Blanchet; Brian E Carpenter; [e-mail];
>> 46Translation; Behave WG
>> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [46translation] [v4v6interim] "My" [Re: Proposal
>> for new BEHAVE charter]
>>
>> Not even sure why it needs to be "a specific". We're going to ahve
>> cross-domain issues, and if we don't think about them we will amke
>> mistakes that will bite us later.
>>
>> For my money, we are connecting "an IPv4 network" with "an IPv6
>> network", and either might be public or private.
>>
>> On Oct 21, 2008, at 6:33 AM, Dave Thaler wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Agree with Brian: s/MY/A specific/
>>>
>>> -Dave
>>>
>>>       
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:46translation-
>>>> [e-mail]] On Behalf Of Marc Blanchet
>>>> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 2:43 PM
>>>> To: Brian E Carpenter
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; 46Translation; Behave WG
>>>> Subject: Re: [46translation] [v4v6interim] "My" [Re: [BEHAVE]
>>>> Proposal
>>>> for new BEHAVE charter]
>>>>
>>>> Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
>>>>         
>>>>> On 2008-10-21 03:52, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>           
>>>>>>>> 1. MY IPv6 to IPv4 Internet, i.e. perform translation between
>>>>>>>> IPv4
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>> and
>>>>         
>>>>>>> "MY" should be expanded or explained before it is first used.
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> Okay, do you think the following is good enough?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "My" IPv4 or IPv6 network in the descriptions below refer to a
>>>>>>             
>>>> network
>>>>         
>>>>>> with a clearly identifiable administrative domain (e.g., an
>>>>>>             
>>>> enterprise
>>>>         
>>>>>> campus network, a mobile operator's cellular network, a
>>>>>>             
>> residential
>>     
>>>>>> subscriber network, etc.).
>>>>>>             
>>>>> I find the use of "My" frankly a bit silly in a charter.
>>>>>           
>>>> I had the exact same concern but was shy to say it. now that someone
>>>> did
>>>> it, I support 100%.
>>>>
>>>> Marc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> My Computer is cluttered with silly things like My Network Places,
>>>>> My Documents and My Pictures, and it's all a bit annoying...
>>>>>
>>>>> s/My/A specific/ ?
>>>>>
>>>>>   Brian
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> v4v6interim mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim
>>>>>           
>>>> --
>>>> =========
>>>> IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley, 2006. http://www.ipv6book.ca
>>>> Stun/Turn server: http://numb.viagenie.ca
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 46translation mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/46translation
>>>>         
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Behave mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>>>       
>
> _______________________________________________
> 46translation mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/46translation
>
>   

-- 
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research 
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or  [e-mail] 

_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim