Re: [v6ops] IPv6-only section [draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC]

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 08 August 2013 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9910C11E8231 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 14:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.515
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HruRJMIv+6Lv for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 14:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x22e.google.com (mail-pb0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2616211E822C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 14:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f46.google.com with SMTP id rq2so3872400pbb.33 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Aug 2013 14:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=HJ+lsQteNGuHsJUXjbk5sXIq0AZjRvX9rJrPqRig3eA=; b=A+7HVgqeKbfTeVkSo03B2AztGpp6Nv1gQR1g9K90RnnA2b99lm6fqAlQGX/oDoa4lA 90VoDlAFrhXOFXMrpcLZkHDzhGK6hnale6VEb0kYAuca6dvI9nnIdEClHEb3uR+3tYvC CMcu3AaId/pj7vNxxDoLYOtOwfVzUNysymU4JvogxBaC6nw/2PksgiHzKMJOuSFIF3/b qfprm/IFOWmkvDyVAuezgPal1kZyeEwQI5ackcP2CUsZsNAGTOmbdDmWzanZlzWuV5I/ 2olCsmG2e1ozir9PXUjK14GfCBwbCLNSeDiv2P86h1WYuKi9KTBoUWxy3Wq0+VmXPo+z K9Aw==
X-Received: by 10.66.221.8 with SMTP id qa8mr7884656pac.188.1375995641842; Thu, 08 Aug 2013 14:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] (110.200.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.200.110]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id yg1sm16103280pbb.1.2013.08.08.14.00.39 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 08 Aug 2013 14:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <52040700.2010908@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 09:00:48 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
References: <201308041800.r74I03pC023049@irp-view13.cisco.com> <5200804D.2050006@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTGL9JVK6egOAVXhMFv77L0b=9eVjKAauwNzLnaM=Mcyw@mail.gmail.com> <52031D69.3070604@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTAJVvmG_byRMW_F2g+WDBvdRLop_oLshgwbUsfBjRzbA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKC-DJh1q+sJB00yo7HsFifWb=42teg_ga4CjRQVVecU1emcDA@mail.gmail.com> <5203C7E5.3060106@globis.net> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B97A0E3@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B97A0E3@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>, "<v6ops@ietf.org>" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6-only section [draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 21:00:42 -0000

On 09/08/2013 07:02, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> On Aug 8, 2013, at 9:31 AM, Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net> wrote:
> 
>> Why would anyone in their right mind chose to deploy NAT64/DNS64 in a commercial environment given the prices I've seen for that functionality?
> 
> The place I generally see it called out is between an IPv6-only (portion of a) network and an IPv4-only (portion of a) network. This may be interesting reading - and in a few weeks I'll be seeking opinions on it.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience
>   "NAT64 Operational Experiences", Gang Chen, Zhen Cao, Chongfeng Xie,
>   David Binet, 2013-07-08

And what I find lacking in the enterprise-incremental-ipv6 draft
is a sentence or two pointing out that there are practical issues
and tradeoffs - the current text is a rather abstract explanation
of the scenarios and standards, which is not generally enough for
a enterprise network manager. This discussion has shown that it isn't
a clear-cut matter, so some sort of practical guidance is needed.

    Brian