Re: [v6ops] Draft on DC migration to IPv6

Diego,

I think the real problem is persuading the people who manage
data centres that there is an economic and business incentive
to support native IPv6 (as opposed to support native IPv6
customers, which they probably understand). In some cases the
arguments are technical perhaps (for example, if the load
balancers use direct server return, making the servers dual
stack will be the only reasonable approach). But in general
just showing people how to design the technical solution is
not enough for them to adopt it.

So while I understand the idea of your draft, it doesn't solve
the problem of motivation. Also I think it's unlikely that all
DCs fit the single framework you describe - surely there is
a wider range of scenarios? That's why the IETF in general
does better when documenting individual components and solutions
than when tackling frameworks.

Also there should be a clarification of how this draft relates
to draft-chkpvc-enterprise-incremental-ipv6.

Please refer to draft-carpenter-flow-label-balancing instead
of draft-carpenter-v6ops-label-balance.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 2012-06-25 08:58, 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