Re: [v6ops] Enterprise Guidance on IPv6 (draft-chkpvc-enterprise-incremental-ipv6-00)

Regardless of whether this draft is the vehicle or not, one thing that I 
think is missing is that large enterprises currently almost universally 
use some sort of centralized gateway or proxy to access the Internet, 
coupled with "split DNS" (whether the IETF likes that or not).

Many enterprises have expressed a desire to become "Internet Centric" 
whatever that is. They're also moving very rapidly to cloud services for 
generic applications. However, they'll still need private enterprise 
networks with SLAs for many other business critical services ad interim, 
at least until the generic Internet supports an equivalent of Diffserv. 
Multiple IPv6 addresses per node, with a combination of PI space for the 
enterprise network and PA space fromlocal providers, is making direct 
proxy-free nat-free local Internet breakout potentially possible 
(together with MIF and appropriate address selection). DNSSEC is also 
potentially attractive to facilitate/ restore a basic end to end trust 
model.

So I think we know where we're starting, and I think we know where we 
end up, but is there any operational advice available on the steps that 
would be required to e.g. "unsplit DNS" (and remove proxies) when 
introducing IPv6?

In other words, how do we restore the end to end model without breaking 
stuff on the way?

regards,
RayH

Lee Howard wrote:
> When discussed in Taipei, it seemed there was real interest in updating
> guidance for
> enterprise networks.  From lack of list discussion, it now appears there's
> no interest in
> the WG.
>
> 1.  Are people interested?
> 2.  Should we let it die?
> 3.  Should we pursue other avenues of publication?
>
> Lee
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Victor
>> Kuarsingh
>> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 7:42 AM
>> To: IPv6 Operations
>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-chkpvc-enterprise-incremental-ipv6-00
>>
>> IPv6 WG,
>>
>> I would like to kick off some comments on this draft for other group
> members to comment.
>> I do think (Bias noted) that this material is useful for Enterprises who
> need to being and/or
>> move their IPv6 deployments.  Many (of those I have worked with thus far)
> are bogged
>> down with personnel who are overwhelmed with what it may take to get IPv6
> moving on
>> their networks.
>>
>> The draft breaks the challenge down by areas of focus (rolled into
>> "Phases") which can help put this large challenge into bite size chunks
> for them. The draft
>> also provides some valid contextual information around
>> IPv6 and highlights areas which should be looked at.
>>
>> Given the good momentum we now have in the operator space, it would be
> good to see this
>> move forward into the Enterprise space.  I think such documents can help
> many of those still
>> waffling (too many to count) to start acting.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Victor K
>>
>>
>> On 12-03-22 8:02 AM, "Tim Chown"<tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Due to a typo in the draft name, this draft didn't hit Fred's automated
>>> WG tools, so the authors would like to raise the draft on the list now
>>> with a view to securing a slot in Paris to discuss its value and content.
>>>
>>> In Taipei there was a comment in the WG session that there is no
>>> up-to-date v6ops guidance on enterprise networks, while other scenarios
>>> do have such texts.  So at the mic I invited people to join an effort
>>> to put something together.  There is a good breadth of experience
>>> across the people who stepped forward, and the result is available as
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-chkpvc-enterprise-incremental-ipv6-00.txt
>>>
>>> Does the WG think the subject matter of this draft is one we should
>>> pursue in the WG?  If so, is the structure and content appropriate?  We
>>> need some positive feedback and comments in order for Fred to schedule
>>> us time in Paris.
>>>
>>> We have had a couple of people contact us off-list offering to help
>>> develop the content.  But we'd like some feedback from the WG before
>>> investing more time in doing so.  The -00 text is somewhat "rough", but
>>> we feel it could be polished into something quite useful for the
>>> community.
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> v6ops mailing list
>>> v6ops@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>
>