Re: [v6ops] v6ops charter update discussion

[Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 13 Apr 2015, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:

> Lee and I are reviewing the v6ops charter. I have attached a proposed charter and diffs against the current one. Joel has not commented on this yet, and while we have run it by the sunset4 chairs, we haven’t gotten a reading from them. Sunset4 is relevant because possibly the ipv4-as-a-service discussion would be better handled there. In this email, I’m soliciting opinions in general.
>
> The charter update started with Lee feeling that the fourth bullet of our current charter, which reads
>    4. Publish Informational or BCP RFCs that identify and analyze
>       solutions for deploying IPv6 within common network environments,
>       such as ISP Networks, Enterprise Networks, Unmanaged Networks
>       (Home/Small Office), and Cellular Networks.
>       (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/charter/)
> is largely done. We know how to deploy IPv6.

Hm, while I generally agree with you, does this mean that these kinds of 
RFCs will be out-of-scope for v6ops going forward? I would hate for us to 
take this out of the charter and then turn people away when they show up 
with a document for a solution we didn't think of yet.

Or perhaps paragraph 1 is enough to allow for capturing these kinds of 
documents?

>    4. Describe an operational roadmap to IPv6-only network deployment,
>       with or without IPv4 delivered as an overlay or translation
>       service.

Fully agreed.

> On another point, Lee and I have been discussing the operational reports 
> we had at IETF 92, and feel that was time well spent. Those had a common 
> thread, which was the deployment of Softwire’s MAP-E and MAP-T 
> technologies in their networks. We are thinking about asking companies 
> deploying IPv6 in Europe, Asia, and South America to make reports in the 
> coming three meetings, on their IPv6 deployments and the issues they 
> face. Would that be of general interest? How would you propose to tune 
> that concept?

I think this is worthwile, as long as it's not going to be come a long 
list of 10-15 minute presentations saying the same thing. For those, we 
can keep it on the list. I always welcome operational reports in the 
meetings, but they need to contain news, not "we experienced the same 
thing as <foo> and solved it the same way".

I would like to hear from the ds.lite deployers out there, I know they 
exist. Also from 464XLAT+NAT64 deployments (probably in mobile).

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]