Re: [v6ops] [sunset4] draft-anderson-siit-dc-00

On 12/19/12 7:42 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn> wrote:
>> Hi, Tore and All,
>>
>> Thanks for your interesting draft. I also noticed that you presented this
>> concept in RIPE64
>> https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/67-20120417-RIPE64-The_Case_for_IPv6_Only_Data_Centres.pdf
>> Due to the deployment of VMs in the DC, the depletion of the IPv4 address is
>> a big issue and your draft presents a solution. I would like to see the
>> discussion of your draft in v6ops.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> xing
> +1, i have read the draft and i believe it is something we need to
> work on.  More and more ipv6-only networks are popping up (TMO USA for
> mobile, TerraStream at DT for fixed line, Red Pill in data center,
> CERNET2 in backbone ...), and i believe Tore has outlined a sensible
> path for achieving this in a data centers ...what's more... it is a
> running code... errr.. network.
>
> I urge the chairs for sunset4 and v6ops to make a call on which WG
> should own it and then take on the task of stewarding it into a WG
> document.  This draft is clearly about running an IPv6 network (so
> v6ops), but the main feature is shutting off ipv4 (so sunset4)
I do see operating v6 only networks as germain to v6ops. there is 
clearly an intersection with sunset4 or behave/softwire/et al on how 
legacy ipv4 needs are supported if at all.
> editorial comments sent directly to the author.
>
> CB
> _______________________________________________
> sunset4 mailing list
> sunset4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
>