Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-04.txt

[Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pablo & Co-authors

I read the latest version and it looks very good and well written and I
believe will very helpful to operators looking to deploy IPv6.

Few comments.
In Section 3.6 it maybe worth mentioning that Happy Eyeballs plays a
critical role where an application has FQDN A / AAAA record and IPv6 client
/ server communications by desktop browser and OS level allows for seamless
failover to from IPv6 fo IPv4 in case of IPv6 network connectivity loss
where IPv6 may not yet be fully deployed.  This is extremely helpful when
migration applications from IPv4 to IPv6 having a single DNS name with both
A and AAAA record instead of having a separate VM instance for AAAA
record.  In this way all applications can seamlessly migrate to IPv6 as
IPv6 is preferred over IPv4 and so all IPv6 community dual stacked hosts
can communicate using same URL to the server via IPv6 and all IPv4 only
hosts can as well use the same URL to communicate via IPv4.  Eventually
when all host endpoints are all dual stacked the application servers can
now change to IPv6 only from dual stack.  For external connectivity to the
internet web proxy can be used providing 6to6 or 4to6 proxy to the
internet. This allows applications servers  on the inside internal network
to change to IPv6 only once all host endpoints are all dual stacked.  This
same 6to6 proxy function for application server migration to IPv6 only can
work for reverse proxy as well.  The above is some feedback on real world
migrations of applications to IPV6 and overall process.

In section 5 you could add mention to RFC 5565 softwire mesh framework
which is based on a standard single protocol IPv4-Only or IPv6-Only for
core where where IPv4 packets can be tunneled over 4to6 MPLS software over
an IPv6-Only core.

Also you could add reference to IPv6-Only PE design draft below which had
been adopted by the BESS WG and basically allows dual stack functionality
without having to dual stack the interface without any tunneling mechanisms
resulting in OPEX savings for operators elimination of IPv4 addressing and
BGP peering.  Used to help address IPv6 address depletion issues.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-ipv6-only-pe-design-00

Also as far as deployment of IPv6 in an operator Core or Data Center
network most vendors have a knob to enable IPv6 processing and forwarding
messages of packets without having to configure an IPv6 address using a
knob similar to Cisco “IPv6 enable”.  This allows for the quick deployment
of IPv6 in a core or Data Center network without having to provisioning P2P
links with global unicast address with very large networks this can be
painfully long process.  The reason why IPv6 GUA  is not necessary with is
the IGP OSPF and ISIS use link local source address for sending link state
updates.  For operations ping and traceroute this does require  RFC 8335 to
be utilized for probing for traceroute so you get the proper interface
response.

Kind Regards

Gyan


On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 11:33 AM Paolo Volpato <paolo.volpato=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Cong,
>
>
>
> Many thanks for your comments.
>
> We are currently working on a new version of the draft that will be
> uploaded just before the deadline for the IETF 113.
>
> That version will address some online/offline comments we have received
> after the publication of version -04 and will take your input into
> consideration.
>
>
>
> Also, please see inline my answer (as [PV]).
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Paolo
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* v6ops <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> *Sent:* Monday, February 28, 2022 3:51 PM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for
> draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-04.txt
>
>
>
> Hi Cong,
>
>
>
> Tks a lot for the inputs!
>
>
>
> My responses below in-line, as co-author.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 28/2/22 9:49, "v6ops en nombre de Li Cong" <[e-mail] en
> nombre de [e-mail]> escribió:
>
>
>
> Hi, Paolo,
>
>
>
>
>
> This draft gives a comprehensive picture of global IPv6 development and
> extracts some basic challenges that need to be solved by the industry. I
> think this draft is useful. In addition, I also have some comments prefixed
> [Cong] below,
>
>
>
>
>
> [Cong]: In this draft, you use the terms of “IPv6 introduction” and “IPv6-only
> to illustrate the first stage and second stage of IPv6 development
> respectively. However, I think they may overlap in some scenarios, for
> instance, some operators may use IPv6-only directly and stride over the
> IPv6-introduction stage with dual-stack. What I mean here is that
> dual-stack and IPv6-only are different approaches of transition, they do
> not correspond to the stages absolutely.
>
>
>
> [Jordi] Yes, in some cases, the “IPv6 introduction”can/will be directly
> bypassed. I thought was obvious in the text, but definitively we need
> stress it to ensure that is sufficiently clear.
>
>
>
> [PV] The sequence we have proposed comes from our experience and can be
> seen as a general approach often adopted by operators to deal with the
> introduction and deployment of IPv6. That does not preclude that, as you
> said, an operator directly jumps to an IPv6-only solution. We will better
> clarify this point in the next version of the draft.
>
>
>
> In section 3.6, “The preliminary step to take full benefit of the IPv6
> capabilities is to write or adapt the application software for use in IPv6
> networks”
>
> [Cong]: As far as I know, the software code of most modern applications is
> agnostic to the type of IP address, whether the application uses IPv6 lies
> in the difference of address configuration of the host.
>
>
>
> [Jordi] I don’t think that’s the case in some situation (unfortunately too
> many). I often still find all kinds of apps, including network management
> ones, that aren’t yet really working in a dual-stack or even IPv6-only
> environment. So I think we shall keep that section.
>
>
>
> [PV] I tend to agree with Jordi. Unfortunately, many applications don’t
> fully support IPv6 and have not been updated yet. The draft references some
> technical papers that discuss what it is still missing for a full support.
>
>
>
> In Section 4.1， “Although the Dual-Stack IPv6 transition is a good
> solution to be followed in the IPv6 introductory stage,”
>
> [Cong]: From the perspective of network operation, I don’t think
> dual-stack is a GOOD solution, for it increase the cost of O&M. In
> addition, dual-stack provide exposure-face, it increases the risk of being
> attack. I think it should be replaced by other term.
>
>
>
> [Jordi] I definitively agree with you. Again, I thought it was clear in
> the text, we shall stress it, but it is a case-by-case dependent. For
> example, if an ISP has sufficient IPv4 addresses, and the CPEs support
> dual-stack, but not IPv6-only with IPv4aaS, then the Capex may surpass the
> Opex if moving to IPv6-only instead of dual-stack. Of course, that will
> have a break point at some time, but it will depend on every case.
>
>
>
> In section 4.. “IPv6-only transition technologies with IPv4aaS have a
> much lower need for IPv4 public addresses, because they make a more
> efficient usage without restricting the number of ports per subscriber.”
>
> [Cong]: I think the restriction of number of ports per-subscriber is
> related to the policy of address/port usage, IMO it should be independent
> to the approach of IPv4aaS.
>
>
>
> [Jordi] I will say that also depends a lot on the specific IPv6-only with
> IPv4aaS being used. In 464XLAT, you don’t need to restrict the number of
> ports per subscriber and the overall public IPv4 usage is lower. However,
> this is not the case in the other ones. I think this is very well described
> in another document, so one more reference to it (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison/)
> should clear that.
>
>
>
> [PV] We will review the text here to be a bit more specific.
>
>
>
> I hope my comments will be helpful to your document.
>
> [PV] Sure, many thanks!
>
>
>
> Best regards，
>
> Cong Li
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paolo Volpato
> Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 4:54 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Chongfeng Xie <[e-mail]>; Giuseppe Fioccola <
> [e-mail]>; Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>;
> Jordi Palet Martinez <[e-mail]>; Nalini Elkins <
> [e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: New Version Notification for
> draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-04.txt
>
> Dear WG,
>
> We have published version 04 of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment/).
>
> We have reviewed most of the draft, to update the status of IPv6
> deployment and to refresh some of its parts.
>
> Here is the summary of the main changes:
> - Section 2: introduced the new numbers on the adoption IPv6 (as of
> January 2022).
> - Section 3: updated the adoption of IPv6 in the enterprise, government
> and education domains. We have also added references to more countries
> (e.g. India, the European Union).
> - Section 4: we have reviewed this section to address some offline
> comments and discussions on the concept of "overlay" (i.e. how IPv6 may
> support the service layer and its role to enable the transition to
> IPv6-only).
> - Section 5: reviewed the description of IPv6 in the "underlay" (the
> network).
>
> Please feel free to comment.
>
> On behalf of the authors
> Paolo
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 4:34 PM
> To: Gyan S. Mishra <[e-mail]>; Chongfeng Xie <
> [e-mail]>; Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]>;
> Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>; Jordi Martinez <
> [e-mail]>; Jordi Palet Martinez <
> [e-mail]>; Nalini Elkins <
> [e-mail]>; Paolo Volpato <[e-mail]
> >
> Subject: New Version Notification for
> draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-04.txt
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-04.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Giuseppe Fioccola and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name:        draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment
> Revision:    04
> Title:        IPv6 Deployment Status
> Document date:    2022-02-08
> Group:        v6ops
> Pages:        45
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-04.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment/
> Htmlized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment
> Diff:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-04
>
> Abstract:
>   This document provides an overview of IPv6 deployment status and a
>   view on how the transition to IPv6 is progressing among network
>   operators and enterprises.  It also aims to analyze the related
>   challenges and therefore encourage actions and more investigations in
>   those areas where the industry has not taken a clear and unified
>   approach.
>
>
>
>
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email [e-mail] <[e-mail]>*



*M 301 502-1347*