Re: [v6ops] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-v6ops-icp-guidance-03.txt]

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi John, thanks for the review,

On 2012-03-05 17:23, John Mann wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> ---
> 
>    An important first step in every strategy is to determine from every
>    hardware and software supplier details of their planned dates for
>    providing full IPv6 support, with performance equivalent to IPv4, in
>    their products and services.
> ---
> I disagree with this being a _first_ step.

Personally I disagree, but it's certainly a debatable point and I'd
like to hear from other people. My experience with IT managers is that
they hate surprises, and discovering late in the game that a key component
doesn't work is the worst kind of surprise.

> Asking _every_ hardware and software supplier can take a lot of time and effort,
> and can lead to ICP in-action e.g. if some suppliers are not ready.

Correct. I would certainly modify the statement to refer specifically to
determining critical path items - but your exact deployment plan might
change according to which components will be available when.

> 
> Also, "full IPv6 support" can be hard to specify and evaluate -- do
> you mean comply with all RFCs,
> pass specific certification tests, or just the specific list of
> features that you use with IPv4?

That is very variable. Enterprises labouring under some stupid set of
auditable requirements might have to be very strict; others might be
very pragmatic. Either way, the criterion is functionality needed
for IPv6, not an IPv4-driven feature list. I agree that this should
be more carefully phrased.

> 
> My alternate view is
> 
> a) Make a policy decision to avoid the creation of any new
> customer-facing networks or services that are IPv4-only
> b) Enable IPv6 on what you already have, with perhaps some tactical
> expenditure to:
>    i) get some IPv6 traffic flowing

What traffic? There won't be any revenue-generating traffic unless
you make the user-facing service support IPv6.
> 
>    ii) start work on the sections described below e.g. external
> connectivity, address plan, training, operations, and security.
>    iii) get the first IPv6 service operational
> c) Build on the experience and success of the first service to plan
> and justify subsequent IPv6 steps.

That's not very different from what the draft proposes.
> 
> d) Triage your hardware and software
>    i) legacy internal IPv4-only systems that don't ever need to support IPv6
>    ii) systems that can already support IPv6
>    iii) systems due to be replaced soon -- by systems that will
> support IPv6 (see (a) above)
> 
>    iv) systems that will require extra effort or expenditure to get IPv6 support
>    v) problem systems -- e.g. none of the possible suppliers have an
> IPv6 roadmap.

You should certainly do all that; I don't understand how it can be done at
the end.

> 
> ====
> 
> I think some mention could be made in
> 
>    5.2. Routing
> that running dual-stack could require twice the routing table space
> and forwarding TCAM in the routers

Well, more space, indeed.

> 
> And in
>    13. Security Considerations
> that running dual-stack could require twice the amount of permission
> lists, ACLs, TCAMs etc.

Yes, which is why a lot of people want feature-equivalence, so that
they only have to maintain a single config to drive both protocols.

> The growth in table size hopefully won't be 5 times (32 bits to 32 + 128 bits),
> due to most IPv6 routing only going down to /64s, fewer IPv6 routes,
> shorter history of IPv6 exceptions, etc.

Agreed

    Brian

> 
> Thanks,
>     John
> 
> On 23 February 2012 14:41, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> This version has various updates due to comments from the WG.
>>
>> We are not asking for a meeting slot in Paris, but we'd like the
>> chairs to put the question whether the WG wants to adopt this
>> draft. In any case we still want more input to correct and
>> expand the draft.
>>
>>    Brian + Sheng
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-v6ops-icp-guidance-03.txt
>> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:30:09 -0800
>> From: [e-mail]
>> Reply-To: [e-mail]
>> To: [e-mail]
>>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
>> Internet-Drafts directories.
>>
>>        Title           : IPv6 Guidance for Internet Content and
>> Application Service Providers
>>        Author(s)       : Brian Carpenter
>>                          Sheng Jiang
>>        Filename        : draft-carpenter-v6ops-icp-guidance-03.txt
>>        Pages           : 18
>>        Date            : 2012-02-22
>>
>>   This document provides guidance and suggestions for Internet
>> Content
>>   Providers and Application Service Providers who wish to offer
>> their
>>   service to both IPv6 and IPv4 customers.  Many of the points will
>>   also apply to any enterprise network preparing for IPv6 users.
>>
>>
>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-v6ops-icp-guidance-03.txt
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>> This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
>>
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-v6ops-icp-guidance-03.txt
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>> Internet-Draft<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce%0AInternet-Draft>directories:
>> http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>