Re: [v6ops] WGLC: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 11:09 AM Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> > On Apr 10, 2022, at 2:43 PM, otroan@employees.org wrote:
> >
> > There seems to be little agreement on what "IPv6 only" means (it's all
> about perspective) and there is even less for how to get there.
>
> I dunno. I would follow the dictionary on what the word "only" means.
> "IPv6-only", in my mind, means that IPv4 is turned off, at least in any
> equipment that natively switches IPv6. When folks talk about IPv4 as a
> service ("IPv4AAS"), in my mind that means that if IPv4 is switched at all,
> it is handled in a different way than IPv6.
>

> I get a little lost when people argue about what "IPv6-only" means. There
> aren't many choices.
>

I agree that "IPv6-only" should be defined in detail toward the beginning
of the document. My experience with migration to IPv6-only is exactly as
described in your prior email: It is interpreted as something being "taken
away" (IPv4), even though that is not the case, per se, and evokes an
emotional fight or flight response.  I don't know if it's useful or not,
but in much of the work I have been involved in we defined "IPv6-only" as
(paraphrasing): the disabling, lack of availability, or other absence of
IPv4 on a system, with access to IPv4 resources provided by an alternative,
intermediate mechanism.

>What I am saying is that the phrase "IPv6-only" has an immediate
*emotional* impact on the reader, and every time you use it, you repel
exactly the people we are trying to reach: enterprise and ISP operators >
whose entire job today depends on IPv4.

Agreed. Regardless of the definition, I have found that there is very much
ambiguity in what "IPv6-only" means in the context of operational network
functionality. The most common implication is that there will be no access
to IPv4, and that's not generally the case, which feels like it's addressed
in section 4.1, and specifically in section 5.

One other suggestion:

 > "As noted, the pandemic may have influenced the ICT industry including the
dynamic of the address allocations."

Not that we want another, different pandemic, it would probably be a good
idea to clarify that this was driven by the COVID-19 pandemic since this
document will be long-lived.

>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+only
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
ᐧ