[v6ops] draft-anderson-v6ops-siit-dc-01

[Ca By <[e-mail]>]

I have read  draft-anderson-v6ops-siit-dc-01.

I support the document to be republished as a WG informational document
with  the RFC6145 changes  moved into a new document.

I have a one minor comments about draft-anderson-v6ops-siit-dc-01.

The I-D identifies a real network scaling problem where dual-stack is not
an acceptable solution since it does not allow network operators to
decouple IPv4 addresses from nodes deployed, thus nodes deployed cannot
scale beyond IPv4 address holdings with dual-stack.  The IETF needs to
provide better guidance than  "dual-stack everything".  But, the I-D does
not address the simplest solution of simply having IPv4 nodes for IPv4
traffic and IPv6 nodes for IPv6 traffic.  This allows a data center
operator to get the most usage out of scarce IPv4 nodes since they pick up
the IPv4-only users (excluding Apple happy eyeballs!!!) while the IPv6
nodes pickup the IPv6 capable users.  Now, this approach of IPv4-only nodes
and IPv6-only nodes works great when you are Facebook and your smallest
unit of provisioning is a fully packed rack of gear.  If you are a smaller
operator, you may not have enough traffic to justify an IPv6-only node, yet
you still have to scale nodes beyond IPv4 holdings.  There is also the case
where uniformity of provisioning is seen as being a higher value than
having 2 flavor: v4 and v6... thus draft-anderson-v6ops-siit-dc-01
certainly fits a need, but it should be context of dual-stack and single
stack v4 and v6.