Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input

Hi Joe

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:41 AM Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com> wrote:

>
>
> Gyan Mishra wrote:
> >
> > For corporations that do business with the government in the US and
> > maybe other countries have a mandate that the corporations must have
> > IPv6 deployed and use IPv6.
> I cant say I am a fan of gov mandates for how an entity runs its
> internal network so long as government data and/or communications that
> may be on it is secured and reliably so, which is a legitimate interest
> pertaining directly to their business relationship. Other than that, its
> an artificial orthogonal agenda driven mandate and while we may be a fan
> of the particular goal in this case, it should not legitimize the
> overreach inherent in the approach.
>
> Also it breeds resentment and checkboxing.

   Gyan> Agreed

>
>
> >
> > Another business justification is M&A activity for large enterprises
> > and complex NAT solutions and elimination of NAT as a business
> > justification to migrate to IPv6.
>
> They are going to want PI or registered ULA for that.
>
> How do you suppose the M&A driver works? Is the network engineered to be
> dual stacked so that future M&A integration will be much easier if you
> just skip the IPv4 part? Or just build the network v6 only because an
> M&A might happen and your might land on top and then it might be a big
> win? Or an M&A actually happens and internal communications are now a
> business goal so deploying v6 across both entire networks and redoing
> those internal communications on v6 is a better effort than the other
> approaches they have been coping with in the v4 world for decades now?
>
> M&A might be an enterprise driver but its hardly clear cut.
>

    Gyan> Completely agree.

>
> And in general, I personally doubt that by and large enterprises would
> view elimination of NAT as a feature. Perhaps they may want the ability
> to selectively disable NAT or "unhide" selected internal addresses and
> IPv6 will enable that, but many view the obfuscation and abstraction NAT
> provides as a feature, and not even a security one at that.

    Gyan> This is really special use cases for larger enterprises that are
constantly buying companies and have constant issues with overlap of space
and have to continue to propagate and expand NAT followed by OPEX costs to
readdress.   The idea is that if you migrate to IPv6 Only enterprise wide
you can eliminate Nat.

>
>
> At a certain size, they just want more bits than rfc1918 offers.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Kind Regards
> >
> > Gyan
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 9:57 PM Chongfeng Xie <xiechf@chinatelecom.cn
> > <mailto:xiechf@chinatelecom.cn>> wrote:
> >
> >     I think the problem is that there is a gap between enterprises and
> >     what IETF is doing, generally, enterprise needs a solution which
> >     may consist of multiple technologies, to update their network or
> >     system,  but IETF produces many relatively scattered technologies
> >     in the form of standards or informational documents.  These
> >     standards may be systematically organized in IETF,  but they are
> >     not equal to solutions for enterprise, sometimes they touch a
> >     specific requirement of enterprise, but in most cases they don’t.
> >     In order to attract the participation of enterprises, it is better
> >     to arrange the technologies from the perspective and tell the
> >     enterprises what advantages IPv6 can bring to them and how to
> >     upgrade their network with IPv6. If they feel the output of IETF
> >     is close to their network, information system or production, they
> >     will have interest to join.
> >
> >     Best regards
> >     Chongfeng
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>     2022年3月22日 上午4:33，Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com
> >>     <mailto:fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>> 写道：
> >>
> >>     I have thought some about the discussion we had in the V6ops
> >>     meeting about increasing operational input. Several suggestions
> >>     were made: add a separate meeting, segregate parts of the
> >>     meeting, attend the IEPG, use an interim, and so on. One thought
> >>     that I had was to schedule a meeting at RIPE in May.
> >>
> >>     None of these address what seems to me to be a core problem: ISPs
> >>     are deploying, but enterprise isn’t. How do we get enterprise on
> >>     board?
> >>
> >>     Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
> >>     _______________________________________________
> >>     v6ops mailing list
> >>     v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
> >>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     v6ops mailing list
> >     v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> >
> > --
> >
> > <http://www.verizon.com/>
> >
> > *Gyan Mishra*
> >
> > /Network Solutions A//rchitect /
> >
> > /Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <mailto:gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>//
> > /
> >
> > /M 301 502-1347
> >
> > /
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > v6ops mailing list
> > v6ops@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
> --

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*

*M 301 502-1347*