Re: [v6ops] Are we competitive?

[Gábor LENCSE <[e-mail]>]

Dear XiPeng,

That's a great idea, I really appreciate it. Perhaps, I myself will use 
it for teaching at two Hungarian universities. :-)

I miss one thing from the table of contents: IPv6 transition technologies.

With two co-authors, I have also written a free book about IPv6 
(including IPv6 transition technologies) under the CC-BY-SA license in 
2015. I still use some of its chapters as educational material. 
Unfortunately it is in Hungarian and now becoming somewhat outdated. 
Anyway, if you are interested, you can look into it here: 
https://ipv6ready.hu/konyv/IPv6-konyv.pdf

Best regards,

Gábor

8/8/2022 5:56 PM keltezéssel, Xipengxiao írta:
>
> Hi Philipp,
>
> We will probably go ahead to write such a book.  The content will be 
> something like this:
>
>   * A short “IPv6 Quick Guide”, 50-100 pages, for network engineers in
>     operators and enterprises.  Rather than reading 500 RFCs, they can
>     read this book to get a big picture of IPv6.  As Fred said, this
>     book will link to some selected RFCs.   A tentative TOC:
>       o Overview of IPv6 technologies
>       o Overview of IPv6 deployment status
>       o Considerations for operator deployment, and case studies
>       o Considerations for enterprise deployments, and case studies
>
> Brian suggested that the book will be:
>
> a) free of charge on the Internet
>
> b) perhaps print-on-demand for $$
>
> c) written and edited "Wikipedia-style" by a group of experts
>
> d) but with a clearly agreed table of contents and a single editor to 
> guarantee quality
>
> This way, the book can be updated timely, and everybody who wants to 
> contribute can contribute. Comments and suggestions are welcome.
>
> Regards,
>
> XiPeng
>
> *From:* Philipp S. Tiesel <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 8, 2022 2:30 PM
> *To:* Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Ed Horley <[e-mail]>; Xipengxiao <[e-mail]>; 
> IPv6 Operations <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [v6ops] Are we competitive?
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
>     On 29. Jul 2022, at 04:33, Brian E Carpenter
>     <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     On 29-Jul-22 10:00, Ed Horley wrote:
>
>         I believe Rick Graziani updated IPv6 Fundamentals, Second
>         Edition from Cisco Press in 2017. Prior to that, Tom Coffeen's
>         IPv6 Address Planning book was published in 2014, and mine was
>         published in Dec 2013 but I would not consider Tom or my book
>         to be one you would necessarily use in a classroom for
>         instruction.
>
>
>     I agree. For example, consider a general introduction to
>     networking that you might find in a Computer Science major, which
>     for the last many years has been based on IPv4 as a given. OK,
>     sometimes you'll find a mention of IPv6. An example text book for
>     such a course is Computer Networking, 8th Edition, James F. Kurose
>     and Keith Ross, Pearson. I haven't seen that exact edition
>     (published 2020) but the relevant bit of the contents says:
>
>     4.3    The Internet Protocol (IP): IPv4, Addressing, IPv6, and More
>        4.3.1    IPv4 Datagram Format
>        4.3.2    IPv4 Addressing
>        4.3.3    Network Address Translation (NAT)
>        4.3.4    IPv6
>
>     In other words, IPv6 is an afterthought.
>
>     (In the 7th edition, published 2016, but still widely in use,
>     there are 5 pages on IPv6 following 20 pages on IPv4+NAT. Of
>     course they look very out of date today.)
>
>     We want to see this:
>
>     4.3    The Internet Protocol (IP): IPv6, Addressing, Legacy IPv4
>        4.3.1    IPv6 Datagram Format
>        4.3.2    IPv6 Addressing
>        4.3.3    Legacy: IPv4 and Network Address Translation (NAT)
>
>     Get students past that stage and then the dedicated IPv6 books can
>     come into play.
>
> The only book I came across recently that did this differently is 
> Olivier Bonaventure's open-source computer-networking book 
> <htts://beta.computer-networking.info/syllabus/default/protocols/ipv6.html#ip-version-6> book.
>
> I remember fighting my Ph.D. advisor to make IPv6 and IPv4 at least 
> equals in her networks, protocols and architecture lesson and I guess 
> this is not standard today.
>
> Looking at recent training material I came across, some people still 
> teach classful routing…
>
> -> I guess the IETF could really try to help to modernise academic 
> teaching by providing a good stash of up-to-date material.
>
> AVE!
>
>    Philipp
>
>
>
>
>       Brian
>
>
>         My question would be, are you looking for a book to teach the
>         fundamentals of the protocol? If so, Rick's book is more than
>         sufficient and I would not be surprised if he will be updating
>         it for a Third Edition. If you are not looking for a
>         fundamentals book but something else, what is it you are
>         looking for?
>         On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 2:52 PM Xipengxiao
>         <xipengxiao=[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>            Hi Brian,
>
>
>
>            Writing an IPv6 text book is a great idea!  I googled and
>         the newest IPv6 book was from 2014.  At that time, IPv6
>         deployment has just started.  Many progresses have been made
>         since then.  I think it’s warranted to write a new book. 
>          Plus, the covers of those books associated IPv6 with snails
>         and turtles.  It’s time to associate IPv6 with something
>         faster like dinosaurs J
>
>
>
>            Who can better lead this effort than you, Fred, Eric
>         Vyncke, Fernando et al?  I am willing to contribute a fair
>         amount of time to this effort.  I hope other experts can
>         contribute too.  Thanks. XiPeng     -----Original Message-----
>            From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>]
>            Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2022 5:05 PM
>            To: Xipengxiao <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>>; Gert Doering <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>            Cc: IPv6 Operations <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>            Subject: Re: [v6ops] Are we competitive?
>            Hi XiPeng,
>            Mainly I agree and this is a very useful summary.
>            However, we should question whether RFCs are the correct
>         way forward, rather than some kind of collaboration to produce
>         an ideal text book.
>            For example, consider the 3 volumes of "TCP/IP Illustrated"
>         by Stevens & Wright. I believe that had tremendous impact
>         (published 1994, so no IPv6).
>            If we go the RFC route, won't we just end up with 520 IPv6
>         RFCs?
>            Regards
>                 Brian Carpenter
>            On 29-Jul-22 06:59, Xipengxiao wrote:
>             > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 02:51:43PM +1200, Brian E
>         Carpenter wrote:
>
>
>
>             > >> Following the ongoing discussion about "IPv6-only"
>         and why sites are still IPv4-only, I have a question: Are we
>         competitive?
>
>
>
>             > > [Gert] This is a valid question, which I feel hard to
>         answer for the general case.
>
>
>
>             > Let me be blunt and say that IPv6 is not as competitive
>         as we want/think.  If we are to improve, we need to have a
>         common understanding of the current IPv6 situation, the issues
>         and the possible solutions. Here is my 2c for starting the
>         discussion:
>
>
>
>             > IPv6 is currently like a messy forest:
>
>
>
>             > ·littered with dead trees (obsolete features/solutions),
>
>
>
>             > ·smell bad (many operations & performance issues),
>
>
>
>             > ·too many roads inside the forest (too many transition
>         solutions, too many address types), not well marked (without
>         clear solution guidelines), and fairly confusing
>
>
>
>             > ·the roads are difficult to walk (complex address
>         architecture, debatable header design, many complex solutions
>         like source/destination address selection, ND).
>
>
>
>             > This forest has 1 big advantage: plenty of O2
>         (addresses).  Consequently, many people avoid this forest but
>         those really need O2 come. A small number of “grey/white
>         wizards” (the experts) live in the forest. They know every
>         tree (feature/solution) well.  But they tend to focus on
>         fixing individual trees than fixing the forest.
>
>
>
>             > If we want to attract more residents to the forest (IPv6
>         adopters), it’s more important to fix the forest than to fix
>         the trees.  Some ideas:
>
>
>
>             > ·Provide better tour guide book (i.e. IPv6 solution
>         overviews): There are about 500 IPv6-related RFCs. Some are
>         obsoleted and some are conflicting.  I think we should
>         summarizing them and providing guidelines, so that people can
>         read fewer RFCs to master IPv6.  (e.g. the ND deployment
>         guideline draft summarizing 30+ RFCs into 1 draft)
>
>
>
>             > ·Among the many possible routes (e.g. solutions),
>         recommend only the most popular ones (e.g. recommend only
>         Dual-Stack, 464XLAT and MAP-T among the 10+ transition solutions).
>
>
>
>             > ·Provide better road signs in the forest (i.e. solution
>         guidelines): IPv6 solutions are almost complete.  Now it’s
>         more important to write guidelines to simplify operations than
>         to develop more solutions.
>
>
>
>             > ·Identify haphazard places in the forest, and post clear
>         “caution” signs (i.e. identify IPv6 operations/performance
>         issues, and provide guidelines/BCPs)
>
>
>
>             > ·Enlist existing residents to share experience on how to
>         settle into this forest (i.e. case sharing from Cisco, Alibaba
>         etc).
>
>
>
>             > BTW, upon the request of an enterprise, a few on-site
>         attendees had a small side meeting on Monday.  Their
>         **anonymous** opinions and future actions are summarized in
>         the attachment for your info.  If you are interested to join
>         the discussion and contribute, please voice up.  Thank you. 
>         XiPeng
>
>
>
>            ___
>            v6ops mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>
>         -- 
>         Ed Horley
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>| [phone]
>         Advancing Cloud, IoT, and Security with IPv6
>         https://hexabuild.io <https://hexabuild.io/>
>         And check out the IPv6 Buzz Podcast at
>         https://packetpushers.net/series/ipv6-buzz/
>         <https://packetpushers.net/series/ipv6-buzz/>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     v6ops mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
> AVE!
>   Philipp S. Tiesel / phils…
> -- 
>    {phils}--->---([e-mail])--->---(http://phils.in-panik.de)----,
>       wenn w eine   aube ist dn      man au dran dre en               
>     |
>            o     Schr        an muss     hc         h   (Kurt 
> Schwitters) |
> :wq!  <----(phone: [phone])---<---(jabber: [e-mail])----'
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops