Re: [v6ops] Enterprise Guidance on IPv6 (draft-chkpvc-enterprise-incremental-ipv6-00)

[Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]>]

Ray,

How would you propose we work this concept in?  These are good points
overall, but would we expect a document focused IPv6 in the enterprise to
also tackle fallout of architectural enhancements possible with IPv6?

I would think that such a document/concept would be best managed in a
separate document which  was focused on that subject.

I may have missed your point, but these are my initial thoughts.

Regards,

Victor K

On 12-06-13 11:28 AM, "Ray Hunter" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Regardless of whether this draft is the vehicle or not, one thing that I
>think is missing is that large enterprises currently almost universally
>use some sort of centralized gateway or proxy to access the Internet,
>coupled with "split DNS" (whether the IETF likes that or not).
>
>Many enterprises have expressed a desire to become "Internet Centric"
>whatever that is. They're also moving very rapidly to cloud services for
>generic applications. However, they'll still need private enterprise
>networks with SLAs for many other business critical services ad interim,
>at least until the generic Internet supports an equivalent of Diffserv.
>Multiple IPv6 addresses per node, with a combination of PI space for the
>enterprise network and PA space fromlocal providers, is making direct
>proxy-free nat-free local Internet breakout potentially possible
>(together with MIF and appropriate address selection). DNSSEC is also
>potentially attractive to facilitate/ restore a basic end to end trust
>model.
>
>So I think we know where we're starting, and I think we know where we
>end up, but is there any operational advice available on the steps that
>would be required to e.g. "unsplit DNS" (and remove proxies) when
>introducing IPv6?
>
>In other words, how do we restore the end to end model without breaking
>stuff on the way?
>
>regards,
>RayH
>
>Lee Howard wrote:
>> When discussed in Taipei, it seemed there was real interest in updating
>> guidance for
>> enterprise networks.  From lack of list discussion, it now appears
>>there's
>> no interest in
>> the WG.
>>
>> 1.  Are people interested?
>> 2.  Should we let it die?
>> 3.  Should we pursue other avenues of publication?
>>
>> Lee
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>>>Of
>> Victor
>>> Kuarsingh
>>> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 7:42 AM
>>> To: IPv6 Operations
>>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-chkpvc-enterprise-incremental-ipv6-00
>>>
>>> IPv6 WG,
>>>
>>> I would like to kick off some comments on this draft for other group
>> members to comment.
>>> I do think (Bias noted) that this material is useful for Enterprises
>>>who
>> need to being and/or
>>> move their IPv6 deployments.  Many (of those I have worked with thus
>>>far)
>> are bogged
>>> down with personnel who are overwhelmed with what it may take to get
>>>IPv6
>> moving on
>>> their networks.
>>>
>>> The draft breaks the challenge down by areas of focus (rolled into
>>> "Phases") which can help put this large challenge into bite size chunks
>> for them. The draft
>>> also provides some valid contextual information around
>>> IPv6 and highlights areas which should be looked at.
>>>
>>> Given the good momentum we now have in the operator space, it would be
>> good to see this
>>> move forward into the Enterprise space.  I think such documents can
>>>help
>> many of those still
>>> waffling (too many to count) to start acting.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Victor K
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12-03-22 8:02 AM, "Tim Chown"<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Due to a typo in the draft name, this draft didn't hit Fred's
>>>>automated
>>>> WG tools, so the authors would like to raise the draft on the list now
>>>> with a view to securing a slot in Paris to discuss its value and
>>>>content.
>>>>
>>>> In Taipei there was a comment in the WG session that there is no
>>>> up-to-date v6ops guidance on enterprise networks, while other
>>>>scenarios
>>>> do have such texts.  So at the mic I invited people to join an effort
>>>> to put something together.  There is a good breadth of experience
>>>> across the people who stepped forward, and the result is available as
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-chkpvc-enterprise-incremental-ipv6-00.txt
>>>>
>>>> Does the WG think the subject matter of this draft is one we should
>>>> pursue in the WG?  If so, is the structure and content appropriate?
>>>>We
>>>> need some positive feedback and comments in order for Fred to schedule
>>>> us time in Paris.
>>>>
>>>> We have had a couple of people contact us off-list offering to help
>>>> develop the content.  But we'd like some feedback from the WG before
>>>> investing more time in doing so.  The -00 text is somewhat "rough",
>>>>but
>>>> we feel it could be polished into something quite useful for the
>>>> community.
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> v6ops mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> v6ops mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>>
>>
>