Re: [v6ops] Discussion focus: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Mon, 05 February 2018 21:52 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21FE512DA13 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:52:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id doU9NFfLrL14 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:52:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x229.google.com (mail-pg0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2CB512DA08 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:52:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x229.google.com with SMTP id 141so9145803pgd.8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 13:52:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=QD6gxOQEtZvc3LNxtQQK8XMy1K3qQr0YutlpgcOI54I=; b=QXXePgWZZLancipViN3DLj1d2B0az1AuRwQEt/fZwKkOWWC5RMz4f71Cddl1M1LEz2 WKX51jNb9G/q5x9PXenVJ4MAMGDQfZsBRvKMX/y5m9vELkV4JBiZW3sDpMGAgnfRsfaR DW2SD3XdpYXNWWL11HVRsRU3bmQCM0qFDLttGLePEkwTSAFexDcuaHwhHvaKiQuvHglr 8T32lbf7oYljprYzU7oaPuiyWoWOHmU4+SdX9wyt4dmS/+jPBuBTZe/E1WS+mIYU2UcR pRP4Wcl4GDuxJWkmhViOfbi7IzsIx5OhAl5dfMobxV99umb5hYGHaxzcRNzUoYOS8DID Q8KQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=QD6gxOQEtZvc3LNxtQQK8XMy1K3qQr0YutlpgcOI54I=; b=N7hY6WJD7xEqhsDoqZZodJjWV84CZfjI77g1KOheEDnEskfYdZqqSYVG5YmvigYnoV 1mn7s3CNE60A/03dzLM1eCbxA0UFxEQ0vVS1IJky48RslBmY3P2GyiXqgXyTKvBtuVKr 7HT+8lZiaErnE8SpGwraRCiNEGq3RY5AbDS+7D9g8qaCdteJ5S/l+3VxvE6XKbqWW75P Xiw1ykV1WYPi25kPnD2PX2FtDMH1g66Cjlz6YjJbmjWYBTqaAjrOVQngi37DxkbYkqAN fdLCXU4lrPCyd2YafQkaY9BhcaC5DgN0L1I0Q0x7bjgUhDbG0ZivnP0aAUY0ScrZO/8H M+Cw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBp8E475Hn/0FQNfzVu5WJ2gudwIqwUwQh09jqI1c7GPKgNO02s v4jhw/x3HjSYyFx/FDGVuk4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225+H46ucPdTqnTVDOTdM4iLvDUKXXERqxD/m74tmyaQA7lzGf0YlcXXugburQsM/pRk33hZhQ==
X-Received: by 10.101.80.130 with SMTP id r2mr161999pgp.107.1517867553499; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 13:52:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.224.219] ([209.97.127.34]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q14sm13984346pgt.53.2018.02.05.13.52.32 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 05 Feb 2018 13:52:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <F5C33524-E149-46B4-AEF3-3B4FB2CD209F@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D00C2971-DC16-4C8B-86AD-686F5368B769"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 13:52:31 -0800
In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DD0FB39@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
References: <B7CB2B98-F069-425D-A096-AADA0297B34C@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0r=OZKWHatcaV5ZfXUcJhTrzGqnd6wno7SLur9cJzF5w@mail.gmail.com> <066901d385ab$64d663b0$2e832b10$@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2GjXKM53rJJwRzX7RyrCG8u+KZ0TTGuFv=NefHsKRxrw@mail.gmail.com> <bb950d32-8d8a-420b-f01a-609f941109af@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr10o6aqFQ9QWvJdv82gCh7fXzFEcDjZV2beaO_ebLZAig@mail.gmail.com> <058c01d39188$cb3f7630$61be6290$@gmail.com> <c09653f7-6b5b-5fce-a81e-298a38bd747b@gmail.com> <008101d39c3c$430331d0$c9099570$@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau3Tm5yQbz_8qd9gH5Fk3udWfdqJv9Om+WBAjAjUvLOffA@mail.gmail.com> <002701d39c79$d8ead1c0$8ac07540$@gmail.com> <006801d39cea$d1ed5a70$75c80f50$@gmail.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DD0F9A6@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <8395CFA7-D7BA-405F-94C8-3E2406B4D1CF@gmail.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DD0FB39@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/4KLkN3HUHb6qNkjDvQGrH-uQAco>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Discussion focus: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 21:52:44 -0000

Barbara,

> On Feb 5, 2018, at 9:10 AM, STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for this. It's cogent and to the point.
>> 
>> I do have a question. The authors are from LinkedIn and Comcast. How
>> would you interpret that fact in the context of the facts you point out?
> 
> That's for them to say what their motivation is. But Comcast and LinkedIn are both known to be at the forefront of IPv6 deployment. I wouldn't classify LinkedIn as an ISP of any sort or a core/transit network provider or an IXC. If LinkedIn or Comcast thinks there is a need for requirements for data center network routers, that would be interesting to know. Most major data center operators I know have gone to using SDN (with open source router software on commodity hardware). I don't recall having heard Comcast say they need a router requirements document to help with their access/regional network IPv6 deployment (which seems to be doing quite well). I don't know about any internal corporate networks they may have -- which I would classify as "enterprise networks".
> 
> Personally, I haven't heard any of the people working on any of my employer's access/regional/core networks asking for a new IETF router requirements document (the IPv6 metrics for wireline and wireless access are looking pretty good with non-IPv6 traffic due to hosts/wireless UEs/retail CE routers and not the network routers, and no issues in the core; router requirements would have no impact on use of 6rd in legacy DSL access). I have not yet noticed IPv6 in the corporate (enterprise) network that I attach to for work. I've also heard from some people who work with enterprise customers that adoption among those customers is a painfully slow crawl.

I agree with what you have written.  It’s not clear to me what the need is here.  Regarding enterprise deployment, I would be surprised if the reason for slow IPv6 adoption has anything to do with the IETF writing a document describing what an IPv6 enterprise router should implement.  If someone has evidence to show it is needed, I would like to see it too.

Thanks,
Bob


> 
> Clearly, there is a population with a need. If we focus on helping that population, it might be possible to drive results.
> Barbara
> 
>>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 7:34 AM, STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> The primary focus is routers for enterprise or carrier use, however
>>>>> most of the features also have broad applicability to all routers.
>>> 
>>> I see a real need for recommendations for enterprise routers. I also believe
>> that any attempts to broaden the scope beyond that will both slow down
>> producing such recommendations and force the recommendations to be
>> watered down to the point whether they are significantly less useful to
>> enterprise networks.
>>> Here is why I think most other router types either don't need or will ignore
>> these recommendations:
>>> - CE routers are covered by RFC 7084
>>> - telco ISPs aren't asking for this (for their own ISP networks) and
>>> tend to use BBF documents; any who are waiting until IETF produces
>>> router requirements for them need to reconsider their strategy
>>> - cable ISPs aren't asking for this (for their own ISP networks) and
>>> tend to use CableLabs docs; any who are waiting until IETF produces
>>> router requirements for them need to reconsider their strategy
>>> - wireless ISPs aren't asking for this and tend to use 3GPP docs; any
>>> who are waiting until IETF produces router requirements for them need
>>> to reconsider their strategy
>>> - transit/core network providers aren't asking for this and have
>>> already got IPv6 running (and if they haven't, there's no excuse,
>>> because the equipment is there); they also don't tend to do address
>>> assignment (no hosts on those networks) so requirements for DHCPv6 and
>>> SLAAC aren't needed; a lot of this equipment is done with SDN now;
>>> this is also true of a lot of the "regional network" part of ISP
>>> networks
>>> - IXCs don't tend to do address assignment and seem to have IPv6 in
>>> place; any that don't have IPv6 -- it's not for lack of requirements;
>>> a lot of them have gone to SDN
>>> 
>>> As for SDN: If you think an open source project doing SDN code is missing
>> some IPv6 functionality, it might be easier to contribute the code, rather than
>> write an RFC and see if some random person says "OMG, the IETF is saying
>> do this; no-one else is writing this code so I guess I better do it".
>>> 
>>> We need to get enterprises transitioning. Whatever IETF can do to help
>> that specific audience would be appreciated.
>>> Barbara
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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