Re: [v6ops] Are we competitive?

[Ed Horley <[e-mail]>]

I believe Rick Graziani updated IPv6 Fundamentals, Second Edition from
Cisco Press in 2017. Prior to that, Tom Coffeen's IPv6 Address Planning
book was published in 2014, and mine was published in Dec 2013 but I would
not consider Tom or my book to be one you would necessarily use in a
classroom for instruction. My question would be, are you looking for a book
to teach the fundamentals of the protocol? If so, Rick's book is more than
sufficient and I would not be surprised if he will be updating it for a
Third Edition. If you are not looking for a fundamentals book but something
else, what is it you are looking for?

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 2:52 PM Xipengxiao <xipengxiao=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Brian,
>
>
>
> Writing an IPv6 text book is a great idea!  I googled and the newest IPv6
> book was from 2014.  At that time, IPv6 deployment has just started.  Many
> progresses have been made since then.  I think it’s warranted to write a
> new book.   Plus, the covers of those books associated IPv6 with snails and
> turtles.  It’s time to associate IPv6 with something faster like dinosaurs
> J
>
>
>
> Who can better lead this effort than you, Fred, Eric Vyncke, Fernando et
> al?  I am willing to contribute a fair amount of time to this effort.  I
> hope other experts can contribute too.  Thanks.  XiPeng
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2022 5:05 PM
> To: Xipengxiao <[e-mail]>; Gert Doering <[e-mail]>
> Cc: IPv6 Operations <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Are we competitive?
>
>
>
> Hi XiPeng,
>
>
>
> Mainly I agree and this is a very useful summary.
>
>
>
> However, we should question whether RFCs are the correct way forward,
> rather than some kind of collaboration to produce an ideal text book.
>
>
>
> For example, consider the 3 volumes of "TCP/IP Illustrated" by Stevens &
> Wright. I believe that had tremendous impact (published 1994, so no IPv6).
>
>
>
> If we go the RFC route, won't we just end up with 520 IPv6 RFCs?
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>     Brian Carpenter
>
>
>
> On 29-Jul-22 06:59, Xipengxiao wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 02:51:43PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> >
>
> >  >> Following the ongoing discussion about "IPv6-only" and why sites are
> still IPv4-only, I have a question: Are we competitive?
>
> >
>
> >  > [Gert] This is a valid question, which I feel hard to answer for the
> general case.
>
> >
>
> > Let me be blunt and say that IPv6 is not as competitive as we
> want/think.  If we are to improve, we need to have a common understanding
> of the current IPv6 situation, the issues and the possible solutions. Here
> is my 2c for starting the discussion:
>
> >
>
> > IPv6 is currently like a messy forest:
>
> >
>
> > ·littered with dead trees (obsolete features/solutions),
>
> >
>
> > ·smell bad (many operations & performance issues),
>
> >
>
> > ·too many roads inside the forest (too many transition solutions, too
> many address types), not well marked (without clear solution guidelines),
> and fairly confusing
>
> >
>
> > ·the roads are difficult to walk (complex address architecture,
> debatable header design, many complex solutions like source/destination
> address selection, ND).
>
> >
>
> > This forest has 1 big advantage: plenty of O2 (addresses).
> Consequently, many people avoid this forest but those really need O2 come.
> A small number of “grey/white wizards” (the experts) live in the forest.
> They know every tree (feature/solution) well.  But they tend to focus on
> fixing individual trees than fixing the forest.
>
> >
>
> > If we want to attract more residents to the forest (IPv6 adopters), it’s
> more important to fix the forest than to fix the trees.  Some ideas:
>
> >
>
> > ·Provide better tour guide book (i.e. IPv6 solution overviews): There
> are about 500 IPv6-related RFCs.  Some are obsoleted and some are
> conflicting.  I think we should summarizing them and providing guidelines,
> so that people can read fewer RFCs to master IPv6.  (e.g. the ND deployment
> guideline draft summarizing 30+ RFCs into 1 draft)
>
> >
>
> > ·Among the many possible routes (e.g. solutions), recommend only the
> most popular ones (e.g. recommend only Dual-Stack, 464XLAT and MAP-T among
> the 10+ transition solutions).
>
> >
>
> > ·Provide better road signs in the forest (i.e. solution guidelines):
> IPv6 solutions are almost complete.  Now it’s more important to write
> guidelines to simplify operations than to develop more solutions.
>
> >
>
> > ·Identify haphazard places in the forest, and post clear “caution” signs
> (i.e. identify IPv6 operations/performance issues, and provide
> guidelines/BCPs)
>
> >
>
> > ·Enlist existing residents to share experience on how to settle into
> this forest (i.e. case sharing from Cisco, Alibaba etc).
>
> >
>
> > BTW, upon the request of an enterprise, a few on-site attendees had a
> small side meeting on Monday.  Their **anonymous** opinions and future
> actions are summarized in the attachment for your info.  If you are
> interested to join the discussion and contribute, please voice up.  Thank
> you.  XiPeng
>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>


-- 
Ed Horley
[e-mail] | [phone]
Advancing Cloud, IoT, and Security with IPv6
https://hexabuild.io
And check out the IPv6 Buzz Podcast at
https://packetpushers.net/series/ipv6-buzz/