Re: [v6ops] Draft on DC migration to IPv6

Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com> Tue, 26 June 2012 19:25 UTC

Return-Path: <arturo.servin@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 1962011E80CB for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 AVkjhKr05Y36 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26AB711E809F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yenq13 with SMTP id q13so297284yen.31 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:25:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=yJN1n+vuT8nPmEwBZIoY7juJX6AReYpohInnfoWTfCU=; b=zMx0XatCqG6OPLMSKZxfeu5hyE9NO5x9zRlANA/+da3J5TGCU0+VEPr2mbC8tsJuQK Fl8txA57uLMI/uGWjYBlF82EPpEhpiIuroBMYAyDLMzbnMV8vQ0Q6DN8WBObgjyl1bZD J4H0cCwk9HFTOrXGjnOGGFGcAnZ9hLV5PyZizYxvD39ACmlBsQiA4I/aR0nc1y5F5wUu IInC/9vrUgQPOnD6s/iEZ8n6jYmJ97RatfVEDneSVFJ6jazVSjQjUXkhDFRKB6CkToXr OD8m1+WcDeyzvXbC+qg5GVRMkD/YTU+FzIEfIqCnBUqtbzfuCPH2KwKt59cRLPtsj1jZ GtwQ==
Received: by 10.236.200.199 with SMTP id z47mr19265744yhn.82.1340738727733; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:25:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 85-7-200.lacnic.net.uy ([200.7.85.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w61sm142146623yhi.5.2012.06.26.12.25.24 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <28DC472D-01D4-4534-97A9-6AE52BE9CC58@tid.es>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:25:21 -0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7EC83C63-AE66-4FD1-8EFE-2C2CF41F5106@gmail.com>
References: <28DC472D-01D4-4534-97A9-6AE52BE9CC58@tid.es>
To: "Diego R. Lopez" <diego@tid.es>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Draft on DC migration to IPv6
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: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 19:25:29 -0000

Diego,

	Some questions and comments.

	The maturity level 1 is a bit odd to me. Do you mean that it is common to DC to translate all the traffic from v4 to v6 in the border? I am misunderstanding something?

	Shouldn't be a dual stack network (with servers and services in v4) a maturity level 0.5 or 1.5?

	I think also that there are some common scenarios not explored here, for example some native dual stack servers and services combined with single stack services (web server in DS + database server in v4 only).

	The maturity level 3 I think that you need to add that a single stack network is much simple to manage than a dual stack one. IMHO that will be the killer app for an IPv6 only DC.

	Also, take a look at draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance, there is some content that it is already there. 

Regards,
as

	

	

On 25 Jun 2012, at 04:58, Diego R. Lopez wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I've recently been at a workshop (the Carrier Cloud Summit) in which most of
> the presentations and proposals still only consider v4-based solutions, with
> v6 being a matter of border translation if at all, or view v6 as a long-term
> issue, not considering either the problems or the new solutions it can bring to
> datacenter architecture aspects.
> 
> We have recently updated a draft (draft-lopez-v6ops-dc-ipv6-02), precisely oriented
> in that direction. Quoting the abstract, the document is intended to "provide a
> reference framework for datacenter operators planning for a migration of their
> infrastructures to IPv6. It aims to offer a scheme for evaluating different products
> and architectures, and therefore it is also addressed to manufacturers and solution
> providers, so they can use it to gauge their solutions".
> 
> A message from the chair notes that this draft is among those with "no
> expressed interest". And since I think datacenter issues should be under the
> group consideration, I'd like ask you to have a (second?) look at it.
> 
> Be goode,
> 
> --
> "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"
> 
> Dr Diego R. Lopez
> Telefonica I+D
> http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/
> 
> e-mail: diego@tid.es
> Tel:    +34 913 129 041
> Mobile: +34 682 051 091
> -----------------------------------------
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at.
> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops