Re: [v6ops] sense of draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

Hi Alexandre,
Yes, we have to change the wording of that sentence in the next revision. We are referring to RFC6540 that makes recommendations about the use of IPv6.

Regards,

Giuseppe

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandre Petrescu [mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 12:08 PM
To: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>; v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] sense of draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

Le 30/03/2021 à 09:44, Giuseppe Fioccola a écrit :
> Hi Alexandre, Yes, the main scope is to describe the global IPv6 
> deployment and provide an overview on how the transition to IPv6 is 
> progressing, indeed the draft is informational. Anyway, according to 
> the statistics and to the surveys, it can be possible to make some 
> general considerations and report transition challenges in order to 
> encourage actions in the areas identified (e.g. section "Call for 
> action").

I agree.

However, I have a doubt.  At a point this draft says:

    "It is recommended that all networking standards assume the use of
     IPv6 and be written so they do not require IPv4 ([RFC6540])."

Incidentally, I agree with the recommendation, but it is still an advice.  If we want to not put an advice then we dont put it, end of phrase.

Besides, the paragraph above sounds great, and I agree with it.  But it refers to RFC6540.  That RFC is great, and is a BCP.

But in detail, it (RFC6540) says this, among other things that are ok:
> To ensure interoperability and flexibility, the best practices are as 
> follows:
> 
[...]
> 
> o  New and updated IP networking implementations should support IPv4 
> and IPv6 coexistence (dual-stack), but must not require IPv4 for 
> proper and complete function.

This requirement is great, but in practice, 464XLAT needs IPv4 in order to work.  So the 'must not require IPv4 for proper and complete function' is not respected.

A smartphone that is qualified as 'IPv6-only' by many still has an IPv4 stack in it and still runs IPv4 software.

That is a problem.

This might represent a basis that - when shaken - goes up to the 'it is recommended' of this draft that I mentioned earlier.

Alex

> 
> Giuseppe
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 6:48 PM To: v6ops@ietf.org Subject:
> [v6ops] sense of draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment
> 
> I wanted to ask whether the sense of the intention of 
> draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment is:
> 
> - to describe deployment?
> 
> - or to give advice about what the deployment should be?
> 
> For my part, I think it should solely describe deployment.
> 
> Alex
> 
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
> v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 