Re: [v6ops] Reminder: draft-ietf-v6ops-wireline-incremental-ipv6 WGLC

["George, Wes" <[e-mail]>]

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Victor Kuarsingh
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 2:21 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; Ron Bonica
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Reminder: draft-ietf-v6ops-wireline-incremental-ipv6 WGLC

As of now, we still have not changed the tone of the document from the "deploy IPv6" and "consider IPv4".  Also, there had been some comments from one of the contributors that would have put stronger language round IPv6-only methods of operation (to the CPE) which would have operators potentially allow IPv4 to suffer in performance to promote IPv6 operation - this has not yet been included.

My personal opinion is that making IPv4 operate worse on purpose when given other options is counterintuitive to the job of an operator. Other opinions welcome.


[WEG] Victor - as one of the people who has been advocating a serious discussion of IPv6-only, I think that there are two points to make:
1) IPv6-only has the potential to be simpler than dual-stack because you're not dealing with duplicate network management/scale, etc. Even if the topology is 100% the same between the two, you're still dealing with two separate protocols across your configuration, your route storage/convergence, your management, your troubleshooting. That is probably something to be minimized where possible, and I think it's realistic to start recommending that since IPv6 is the desired end state, if there's a preference for single stack, it makes sense for IPv6 to be the preferred stack over IPv4, even if some parts of the transition happen over a fairly long time.
2) I am certainly not advocating making IPv4 worse, and I think that the draft is pretty good at walking the line here - there's a need to keep IPv4 services working as well as they can for as long as possible to keep legacy customers happy. That doesn't prevent you from also making sure that you're making forward progress towards IPv6 (and eventually reducing the amount of the network that is using IPv4).

I think this draft is ready to progress if you believe that you've covered the comments above.

Wes George

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.