Re: [v6ops] About Req for Comments - "Transition to IPv6"

[Morizot Timothy S <[e-mail]>]

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>*** Then there is a problem. If they really want to have ALL the way thru only IPv6 in the LANs, the federal employees
>will not be able to use *ANY* application that uses literal addresses (even a simple web page that is doing that).
>Because there is NO transition mechanism that allows that. They are able to force all their internal apps to use only
>IPv6, fine, but they have no control over the rest of the Internet. If they are thinking that NAT64+DNS64 resolves
>that, they lost this “small” bit in their thinking. I’ve already reported them to the site that is asking for comments,
>hopefully they really pay attention to the inputs.

I'm intrigued that you believe that's inherently a problem. Perhaps you're not aware how restrictive
US federal government networks often are? There are a great many things on the Internet I cannot
access from my work computer, even for official work purposes. For example, I am the designated representative
for my organization with ARIN. But during remote participation, I could not access jabber and
cannot access slack from my work computer. I cannot access any conferencing platform from
my work computer even for official, approved purposes. There are multiple levels of firewalls when
I am connected to the enterprise network, all operating in default deny mode. My work computer
presently has no direct access to any endpoint on the Internet. Every service allowed is proxied.
And if things on the Internet do not work within our requirements, we don't use them.
Now, removing even the perimeter service proxies to the public IPv4 Internet would fall
into that last 20% that does not yet have a specifically mandated date. The emphasis,
though, should likely be on *yet*. I know many of the people who contributed to
the draft. I don't think they "lost" anything in their thinking.
 
>*** I will be glad if they can send this memo to every small web site in the world,
>because even if one of them is missing it, and need to be accessed by
>the employees, will not work!

It's published in the Federal Register. Those interested in advance warning about the
steps the US government is planning to take on their own networks have it available.
It will remain published by OMB when formally released. However, restricting access
for federal employees is perfectly normal and occurs today for all sorts of
reasons. Our networks do not operate under the premise that any system
on our network must be able to access any arbitrary system, service,
site, or application on the Internet. In fact, more the opposite applies.

I believe Owen captured more the spirit and intent of this next step in
the progression of the US federal government IPv6 transition. Despite
the mandated dates, progress will almost certainly continue to be uneven across agencies.
But the reporting requirements are something of a stick. Compliance with
regulations and other requirements tends to be one of the drivers
in government decision-making, especially since profit is not normally
the factor it is in commercial decision-making.

Scott