Re: [v6ops] draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment and draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

[Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alexandre,
Thanks for your support!
Please see my responses inline tagged as [GF].

Regards,

Giuseppe


-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 6:38 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment and draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment



Le 27/03/2021 à 05:58, Fred Baker a écrit :
> 
> 
>> On Mar 19, 2021, at 1:39 AM, Paolo Volpato <[e-mail]> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> For lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison, on behalf of the authors of 
>> draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment I can say we are in favor of the WG 
>> adoption. Not only is it a good description of the transition 
>> technologies to IPv6, but it also constitutes a basis for our draft.
> 
> OK, let me put this to the working group. We asked about adoption of 
> draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison once before (in January 2020), 
> and got essentially no response. It has come up on the list twice 
> since, in July and in November. The authors of 
> draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment would like to see it adopted. The two 
> sets of authors are disjoint. I therefore have at least nine people 
> that would like to see us adopt and publish it. What other folks have 
> opinions, pro or con?
> 
> Along the same lines, are there opinions regarding the adoption of 
> draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment?

Hi, Fred,

Generally speaking I am in favor of immediate adoption of drafts that describe IPv6 deployments, so of these ones too.

I have some input to offer from my experiments on an IPv6-only computer connected to the Internet.  For example I would suggest to not use any URL that does not work.

There is an 'IPv6 survey' reported in the draft, so I could offer another results of IPv6 survey, in English, but from France.

[GF]: Happy to receive your contribution here.

There is advice that is provided in the draft as well.  I might agree with some advice and disagree with some other, and suggest another one.

[GF]: Yes, we have tried to derive some advice based on the survey. Anyway the main scope of the draft is to give a global picture of IPv6 so we can revise that part according to the feedback received.

I would suggest to describe more of the pure translation-less IPv6 deployments on 'bare metal' where IPv4 is completely absent.  Maybe use more of a perspective where IPv4 does not exist and IP is all there is to be (to signify IPv6).

[GF]: Sure, this prospective can be added, even if it is not the most common situation.

Then there is the 64bit problem that I really believe to be a problem of
IPv6 deployments and mobile networks, but which is not mentioned.

[GF]: A new section on mobile networks can be introduced in the next version.

Alex


> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=a&q=%22draft-lmhp-v6ops-
> transition-comparison%22
>
> 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=a&q=%22draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment%22
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops