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

[Paolo Volpato <[e-mail]>]

Hi Fred,
Many thanks for your comments.
We will incorporate your suggestions, in particular those regarding a better usage of English, in the next version of the draft.

About 6to4 as found in section 8.1.1 we will remove the reference. It was there only to mention that technology without intention to further propose it. Based on your comment it is meaningless to leave it there.

For lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison, on behalf of the authors of draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment I can say we are in favor of the WG adoption. Not only is it a good description of the transition technologies to IPv6, but it also constitutes a basis for our draft.

We will also review section 9 to add more considerations for both sides of the issue, to further support the adoption of IPv6 in mobile networks but also to provide the down-sides.

BR
Paolo

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Baker [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 6:21 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment



> On Mar 15, 2021, at 6:48 AM, Ron Bonica <rbonica=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Each week between now and IETF 111, we will review and discuss one draft with an eye towards progressing it.
> 
> This week, please review and comment on draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment.
> 
>                                                              Fred and Ron

Some thoughts on the draft:

  "Looking globally, IPv6 is growing faster than IPv4 and this means
   that the collective wisdom of the networking industry has selected
   IPv6 for the future." Is a run-on sentence (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/run-on%20sentence)
   It would be more understandable, which is the principal complaint with such sentences, if the "and"
   Were placed with an end-of sentence and start of a new one ("IPv6 is growing faster than IPv4. This means...").

  "Then it is presented the survey among network operators"
   I think the authors intended to say "then it presents a survey of network operators..."

  "It was started an IPv6 poll to more than 50 network operators ..."
  I think the authors meant "more than 50 network operators were polled", or "a poll was started of more than 50 network operators"

  Section 8.1.1 mentions 6to4 (RFC 3068, which we declared historic several years ago and obsoleted in RFC 7526).
  Do we still see significant deployment of this? What are the statistics?

  Section 8.1.2 refers to lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison. SHOuld this draft be published as an RFC,
  That will be at best a "work in progress". The authors asked for it to be adopted as a working group draft
  and eventually published as an RFC. Would the authors of draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment like to see that
  happen, so that they can refer to a stable document?

  What I draw out of section 9 is that the logical conclusion for mobile networks is the abandon IPv4 in favor of IPv6.
  We already know of some mobile networks that have done so (464XLAT was developed in that process). If that is a
  General recommendation, it would make sense to say so clearly, and identify the down-sides of doing so.