Re: [v6ops] Call for Discussion draft-palet-v6ops-ipv6-only

[Richard Patterson <[e-mail]>]

On comment 1, from a CPE router perspective it's the WAN interface that's
facing the Access Node, i.e., an OLT or DSLAM.
With that in-mind I think the existing wording for this point is correct.
Perhaps "access network" can become "Access Network"?


On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 09:50, Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> I have reviewed this draft. It is always good to clarify some confusing
> terminology.
>
>
>
> Some comments:
>
> 1.      Shall we put Access together with LAN instead of with WAN?
>
> 2.      Do we want to include IPv6-only Data Center?
>
> 3.      A typo on Page 3?: “Also if customer devices in a LAN are
> IPv6-only (A typo? -> IPv4-only), they will not be able to access IPv6-only
> services, so this means that IPv6-only services can't be deployed unless it
> is done in such way that some transition mechanism …”
>
> 4.      Do we want to provide a reference [RFC8585] for
> "IPv4-as-a-service"?
>
>
>
> I would also agree that an example(s) or illustrative diagram(s) might be
> helpful, and I gave an attempt. This would be a typical diagram for users
> to access to data center.
>
> I tried to include all the terms defined in this draft, and also IPv6-only
> Data Center. I put LAN and Access together as well.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Shuping
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET
> MARTINEZ
> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 9:56 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Call for Discussion draft-palet-v6ops-ipv6-only
>
>
>
> Hi Mikael,
>
>
>
> In my opinion, your example, has several parts.
>
>
>
> If we want to talk about "all", should be sufficient to say "this is a
> 464XLAT" case. I think this is out of the scope of the document, because
> 464XLAT itself is very well self-contained/described.
>
>
>
> The point is if you want to talk about the WAN link itself. In your
> example case it is clearly an IPv6-only WAN.
>
>
>
> If you want to talk about the UE, actually "today OSs" are native
> dual-stack, however, in this network it is being used as a transitional
> IPv6 host/router.
>
>
>
> The full point of the document is that if we talk about an specific
> transition mechanism, everything is very clear (unless the network is doing
> a "special" deployment different from the standard), however, in many
> occasions it is very relevant to make sure if the WAN links (for example)
> are *natively* transporting IPv6-only.
>
>
>
> That said, I'm of course happy to add a few examples. Not sure if that
> should be an annex or in the main text already.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
> El 9/6/20 14:56, "v6ops en nombre de Mikael Abrahamsson" <[e-mail]
> en nombre de swmike=[e-mail]
> <[e-mail]%20en%20nombre%20de%20swmike=[e-mail]>>
> escribió:
>
>
>
>     On Mon, 8 Jun 2020, Ron Bonica wrote:
>
>
>
>     > Folks,
>
>     >
>
>     >
>
>     >
>
>     > Each week between now and IETF week, we will review and discuss one
> draft with an eye towards progressing it.
>
>     >
>
>     >
>
>     >
>
>     > This week, please review and comment on draft-palet-v6ops-ipv6-only.
>
>
>
>     I think it would be good if we could come up with some terms that
> cause
>
>     less confusion when discussing different solutions. So this draft has
> an
>
>     embryo for that, but I think it would be good if there were some
> examples.
>
>
>
>     So let's say I want to describe a mobile access with IPv6 only WAN
> that
>
>     supports 464xlat? What is that then? "dual stack LAN with transitional
>
>     464xlat-enabled router with IPv6 only WAN and NAT64 function in the
>
>     network"?
>
>
>
>     That's still long and cumbersome...?
>
>
>
>     --
>
>     Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     v6ops mailing list
>
>     [e-mail]
>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
>
> IPv4 is over
>
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>
> http://www.theipv6company.com
>
> The IPv6 Company
>
>
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> v6ops mailing list
>
> [e-mail]
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>