Re: [v6ops] About Req for Comments - "Transition to IPv6"

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 05/03/2020 à 17:38, Erik Kline a écrit :
> Eliminating IPv4 implies eliminating the use of IPv4.
> 
> Eliminating the *use* of IPv4 does not imply eliminating IPv4.
> 
> I don't see any real problem here.  Maybe they *want* the vagueness 
> (i.e. absence of over-specificity)

Indeed.

It might be better to progress along the lines of that 'IPv6 only' even
though that might mean some IPv4 too, than to not progress.  I agree.

> to have some grey area to support NAT64/DNS64 (or maybe even
> 464xlat).

I bet that if they wrote 'NAT64' themselves then they'd wonder about the 
presence of '4'.

So, I guess we might ask them whether they understand that 'IPv6-only' 
requires NAT64 which requires 4 which is IPv4.

Alex

> 
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 6:03 AM Alexandre Petrescu 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> wrote:
> 
> Thank you very much for the pointer.  In it I could spot the
> following footnote: "[4] IPv6-Only refers to network environments in 
> which use of the IPv4 protocol has been eliminated."
> 
> In my humble opinion,
> 
> I think, if I am not wrong, that there are no such networks in which 
> IPv4 protocol has been eliminated.  On one hand, a network is made
> of computers, and IPv4 stacks are still present in almost all
> computers. On another hand, there might be some ptp links (not
> networks, but individual links) that run IPv6 only.
> 
> That is why it is hard to agree on the assumption of IPv4 being 
> eliminated somewhere.  Worse, it makes look as if the goal of that 
> 'IPv6-only' is to arrive at that same situation which in fact does 
> use IPv4.
> 
> There is a draft at IETF in this v6ops WG, about the term
> 'IPv6-only'. We could improve that draft.  We could refer to it as
> well.
> 
> Further, in this Req for Comments 'Transition to IPv6' this text
> makes me think they set the wrong goal:
>> In fact, many of these organizations have migrated, or are
>> planning to migrate, to “IPv6-only”4 infrastructures to reduce
>> operational concerns associated with maintaining two distinct
>> network infrastructures. The intent of this updated memorandum is
>> to communicate the requirements for completing the operational 
>> deployment of IPv6 across all Federal information systems and 
>> services, and help agencies overcome barriers that prevent them
>> from migrating to IPv6-only systems. Going forward, the Federal 
>> government plans to deliver its information services, operate its 
>> networks, and access the services of others using only IPv6.
> 
> The guidance would, better, make think about the removal of the IPv4 
> stack.  For example, uncheck the IPv4 box in Windows ethernet
> interface properties, or remove 127.0.0.1 from /etc/hosts, remove A
> entries from DNS, or similar.  These are criteria easily checked by
> more people.
> 
> In my humble opinion.
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
> Le 05/03/2020 à 14:33, Morizot Timothy S a écrit :
>> Since the formal request for comment has been published on the 
>> federal register, a direct link to the draft as published on the 
>> Federal CIO website (within OMB) might facilitate review and
>> comment. I see some confusion about how to read the draft
>> memorandum itself.
>> 
>> 
> https://www.cio.gov/assets/resources/internet-protocol-version6-draft.pdf
>
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> HTH,
>> 
>> Scott
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: v6ops <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> On
>> Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 7:08 AM 
>> To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> Subject: Re: [v6ops]
> About Req for Comments -
>> "Transition to IPv6"
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Le 05/03/2020 à 13:25, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit :
>>> This is why I've insisted several times in having a document 
>>> describing what is IPv6-only ...
>>> 
>>> I can update it again if the WG is interested ...
>>> 
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-palet-v6ops-ipv6-only-04
>> 
>> To me it might make sense to start from there.
>> 
>> At this time, although I can click on the URL, it leads to a
>> phrase "The attached draft memorandum prepared by the Office of
>> Management and Budget, in collaboration with the Federal Chief
>> Information Officers Council and Federal Chief Information Security
>> Officers Council, supports the Administration’s goals for
>> modernizing Federal Information Technology".  I can not find that
>> 'draft memorandum'.
>> 
>> I can not find precisely what are the questions to comment on.  Or 
>> there might be no precise question, just an overall indication of 
>> ambition.
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>