Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory

["Ackermann, Michael" <[e-mail]>]

HI Fred

Thanks for writing this and it while this type of document  may not seem critical or valuable  to many on this mailing list,  it will be helpful to many of us enterprises who are  currently stuck between 3.2 and 3.3,  without a next step clearly in site.    (and unfortunately,  blissfully content to stay there).  

To understand what the logical transition phases should be and to provide  some relative guidance on implementation choices, will be effective in motivating many of us currently looking for excuses to "Do Nothing" in the IPv6 deployment  space.  

When you said:

"  Many networks continue to kick the tires, lacking a business
   requirement to go to the next step."

This is spot on and really hits  home for many of us enterprises.    We currently have IPv6 on  our clients and servers (mostly because it is easier than trying to figure out how to remove it), on local links only.   We also have IPv6 in labs          But no IPv6  traffic crossing any layer 3  boundaries or being transferred to any meaningful destinations  (production applications, inter-organizational servers,  Internet sites,   etc. ).      

So assistance, advice, guidance, encouragement or however you may categorize this document,  it would  be helpful to those of us currently dealing with our fears of doing something meaningful with IPv6.  	


IMHO,  if this draft moves forward,   V6OPS would appear to be the appropriate WG.   With support from SunsetV4 . 

If you do continue with this draft,  I would be more than willing to assist in any way you deem appropriate.  


So, thanks again for doing this.  

Mike  

-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Fred Baker (fred)
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 1:35 PM
To: George, Wes
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory

Dumb question. There were at least a couple of comments early in the thread about “we should have an ID that says this”. I hacked one together, basically an updated version of the email.

(1) are we interested enough to actually have a draft, or does it just seem cute?
(2) if we’re interested enough to have a draft, what working group?
(3) if we’re interested enough to have a draft, it seems to me that I should have 1-3 co-authors, from SP, enterprise, and perhaps CDN environments, that can comment with some authority about the process and considerations in their environments. I would want the co-authors to add text as they deem it appropriate.

See attached.



The information contained in this communication is highly confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom this communication is directed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information is prohibited. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended receipt and delete the original message without making any copies.
 
 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan are nonprofit corporations and independent licensees of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.