Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input

Gyan Mishra wrote:
>
> For corporations that do business with the government in the US and 
> maybe other countries have a mandate that the corporations must have 
> IPv6 deployed and use IPv6.
I cant say I am a fan of gov mandates for how an entity runs its 
internal network so long as government data and/or communications that 
may be on it is secured and reliably so, which is a legitimate interest 
pertaining directly to their business relationship. Other than that, its 
an artificial orthogonal agenda driven mandate and while we may be a fan 
of the particular goal in this case, it should not legitimize the 
overreach inherent in the approach.

Also it breeds resentment and checkboxing.

>
> Another business justification is M&A activity for large enterprises 
> and complex NAT solutions and elimination of NAT as a business 
> justification to migrate to IPv6.

They are going to want PI or registered ULA for that.

How do you suppose the M&A driver works? Is the network engineered to be 
dual stacked so that future M&A integration will be much easier if you 
just skip the IPv4 part? Or just build the network v6 only because an 
M&A might happen and your might land on top and then it might be a big 
win? Or an M&A actually happens and internal communications are now a 
business goal so deploying v6 across both entire networks and redoing 
those internal communications on v6 is a better effort than the other 
approaches they have been coping with in the v4 world for decades now?

M&A might be an enterprise driver but its hardly clear cut.

And in general, I personally doubt that by and large enterprises would 
view elimination of NAT as a feature. Perhaps they may want the ability 
to selectively disable NAT or "unhide" selected internal addresses and 
IPv6 will enable that, but many view the obfuscation and abstraction NAT 
provides as a feature, and not even a security one at that.

At a certain size, they just want more bits than rfc1918 offers.

>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Gyan
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 9:57 PM Chongfeng Xie <xiechf@chinatelecom.cn 
> <mailto:xiechf@chinatelecom.cn>> wrote:
>
>     I think the problem is that there is a gap between enterprises and
>     what IETF is doing, generally, enterprise needs a solution which
>     may consist of multiple technologies, to update their network or
>     system,  but IETF produces many relatively scattered technologies
>     in the form of standards or informational documents.  These
>     standards may be systematically organized in IETF,  but they are
>     not equal to solutions for enterprise, sometimes they touch a
>     specific requirement of enterprise, but in most cases they don’t.
>     In order to attract the participation of enterprises, it is better
>     to arrange the technologies from the perspective and tell the
>     enterprises what advantages IPv6 can bring to them and how to
>     upgrade their network with IPv6. If they feel the output of IETF
>     is close to their network, information system or production, they
>     will have interest to join.
>
>     Best regards
>     Chongfeng
>
>
>
>
>>     2022年3月22日 上午4:33，Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com
>>     <mailto:fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>> 写道：
>>
>>     I have thought some about the discussion we had in the V6ops
>>     meeting about increasing operational input. Several suggestions
>>     were made: add a separate meeting, segregate parts of the
>>     meeting, attend the IEPG, use an interim, and so on. One thought
>>     that I had was to schedule a meeting at RIPE in May.
>>
>>     None of these address what seems to me to be a core problem: ISPs
>>     are deploying, but enterprise isn’t. How do we get enterprise on
>>     board?
>>
>>     Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     v6ops mailing list
>>     v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     v6ops mailing list
>     v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
> -- 
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> /Network Solutions A//rchitect /
>
> /Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <mailto:gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>//
> /
>
> /M 301 502-1347
>
> /
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops