Re: [v6ops] IPv6-only draft

["Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2019 10:54 AM
> To: Mudric, Dusan (Dusan) <[e-mail]>; IPv6 Operations
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6-only draft
> 
> Hi Dusan,
> 
> 
> El 20/7/19 7:35, "v6ops en nombre de Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)" <v6ops-
> [e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> escribió:
> 
> 
> 
>     "3.  Definition of IPv6-only
> 
>        Consequently, considering the context described in the section above,
>        if we want to be precise and avoid confusing others, we can not use
> 
>        the terminology "IPv6-only" in a generic way, and we need to define
>        what part of the network we are referring to.
> 
>        From that perspective, we define the "IPv6-only" status in a given
>        part(s) of a network, depending on if there is actual native
>        forwarding of IPv4, so IPv4 is not configured neither managed."
> 
>     The document defines IPv6-only not only for the network parts but also for
> a host/router.
> 
> -> I see this document as to have view "end-to-end". So, from host A
> (source) to host B (destination), is it IPv6-only? Under that perspective, the
> hosts, routers, involve in that end-to-end communication, are also part of
> the network. If this is not clear, I could expand the text on this section to
> clarify that. Do you have any suggested wording?
[Dusan] Please revise this suggestion:
        From that perspective, we define the "IPv6-only" service as a usage of 
        IPv6 address family throughout the end-to-end paths between the applications.
        Both  the applications and the underlined network transport use only IPv6 infrastructure.

> 
>     "7.  IPv6-only WAN/access
> 
>        IPv6-only WAN or access can be used only if the WAN or access network
>        isn't actually natively forwarding IPv4."
> 
>     Should use affirmative kind of definitions for IPv6-only, not only here but
> also in other sections. Instead of "isn't actually natively forwarding IPv4"
> should define what it IS forwarding, like "is natively forwarding IPv6".
> 
> -> I think it is clearer with the negative form, unless this is incorrect in
> English? I'm not native speaker. If I use affirmative it gets more complex:
> "isn't actually natively forwarding IPv4"
> vs
> "is actually forwarding natively IPv6 and not natively IPv4"
[Dusan] Saying what it is not, opens a brother space for what it is. If it is not IPv4, it might be IPv6 or IPv10.

> 
>     "10.  Transitional IPv6 host/router
> 
>        Transitional IPv6 host/router is a dual-stack host/router with
>        IPv6-only WAN where IPv4 service support is provided by means of
>        transition mechanism, IPv4aaS (IPv4-as-a-service)."
> 
> -> not sure what is the input here?
> 
>     Dusan
> 
>     Why is it important to mention WAN address family? Why WAN must be
> IPv6-only?
> 
> -> Because the full reason or "starting-point" of the document is the IPv6-
> only terminology clarification.
[Dusan] Then there should be two definitions, one for hosts/routers and another for WAN. Hosts and routers can run applications that are not related to transport/forwarding. These applications should use IPv6-only address family and APIs that provide IPv6-only functionality. Routers should route IPv6-only packets.

> 
> 
>     > -----Original Message-----
>     > From: v6ops <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Fred Baker
>     > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 8:27 PM
>     > To: IPv6 Operations <[e-mail]>
>     > Subject: [v6ops] IPv6-only draft
>     >
>     > The author is asking for time on the agenda at IETF 105; I told him that if
> there
>     > was time at the end of the meeting, it could be part of "AOB". I don't see
> any
>     > discussion on the draft since November 2017.
>     >
>     > FYI, draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag is a different topic.
>     >
>     > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>     > 3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dpalet-2Dv6ops-2Dipv6-
>     >
> 2Donly&d=DwICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=UT3Bk9cbLeaJxhf3iCrh
>     > IoUWB8YLZU23029sMQGQ2kY&m=1nAt78nefTz-p_aiWCrcg5YAes1Z-
>     >
> E1BJms0WuHLM2M&s=UNkIjLs2G5OnvxDyoSyysQPWYTYrk9wTfadmnnr57kg
>     > &e=
>     > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>     > 3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_search_-3Fqdr-3Da-26q-3D-2522draft-
>     > 2Dpalet-2Dv6ops-2Dipv6-2Donly-
>     >
> 2522&d=DwICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=UT3Bk9cbLeaJxhf3iCrhIo
>     > UWB8YLZU23029sMQGQ2kY&m=1nAt78nefTz-p_aiWCrcg5YAes1Z-
>     >
> E1BJms0WuHLM2M&s=E1m_qHn7RsRktmhF07Nf9eanzgGmtNP7lQ29Kyr5su
>     > E&e=
>     >
>     > Your comments appreciated.
>     >
>     > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     > The fact that there is a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven is an
>     > interesting comment on projected traffic volume...
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > v6ops mailing list
>     > [e-mail]
>     > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>     >
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_v6ops&d=DwICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl
>     >
> 1SgiZH64Q&r=UT3Bk9cbLeaJxhf3iCrhIoUWB8YLZU23029sMQGQ2kY&m=1nAt
>     > 78nefTz-p_aiWCrcg5YAes1Z-E1BJms0WuHLM2M&s=595l-
>     > RsCyu_0mPOHtZ0uecureSaBYL3jaFjC9O1xAwY&e=
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     v6ops mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>     https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_v6ops&d=DwIFaQ&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl
> 1SgiZH64Q&r=UT3Bk9cbLeaJxhf3iCrhIoUWB8YLZU23029sMQGQ2kY&m=nVi1
> kxCxFdlB1F2zpz7Bo6AOkAWuN4dXAGVdaQvc8dU&s=Ra0Bi_7Bb4Bl_HWen
> W1n1hXv-oPjwvj2phNsvoLVwB0&e=
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
> 3A__www.theipv6company.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q
> &r=UT3Bk9cbLeaJxhf3iCrhIoUWB8YLZU23029sMQGQ2kY&m=nVi1kxCxFdlB1
> F2zpz7Bo6AOkAWuN4dXAGVdaQvc8dU&s=U7_rLtGQU3ODP6ZztvObrRvAiIS
> aqUJvwbzec5hmzho&e=
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the
> individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure,
> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a
> criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information,
> even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be
> considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to
> inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
>