Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 19/02/2015 14:10, Dave Michaud a écrit :
[...]
> Transitionning to IPv6-only requires further support from the host
> side to form a complete solution.

In this particular respect: no, I think it's very possible to have
transition to an IPv6-only access yet the host acts as a pure IPv4 host
(no CLAT translation on the Host).

I think what you mean is that the cellular operators have a particular
solution for migrating to IPv6-only.  The method 464xlat/clat is good
but not necessarily the best for every context (an IPv4 Host-to-Host app
like Push-to-Talk, to mention something new).

Among those two (IPv6 and CLAT) one would certainly suggest IPv6
implementation in the terminal, but CLAT should be a "MAY".  One
wouldn't want others to think that IPv6 is possible only if CLAT is there.

Alex

>
> The documents published under v6ops should "serve as useful guides
> to network operators and users on possible ways how to deploy IPv6
> within their existing IPv4 networks, as well as in new network
> installations.”
>
> This is exactly what this is. As a LAN administrator, it wouldn’t
> cross my mind to look for an RFC for host requirements because I
> would have little control anyway. As a cellular operator, the hosts
> are part of my network and I do have a say on how they operate and
> it forms part of the overall solution (bullet 4 of the charter).
> Same would apply from a Cable MSO where the CPEs are integral part of
> the network.
>
>
>
> *Dave Michaud* Sr. Architect Mobility – Access Networks & IP Network
> Services Network Technology | Rogers Communications
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> |
> tel: [phone] | mobile: [phone]
>
>
> From: Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> Date: Thursday, February 19, 2015 at
> 07:45 To: Dave Michaud <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> Cc:
> "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>"
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> BINET IMT/OLN <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, IPv6 WG <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> Subject: Re: [v6ops]
> draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Dave Michaud
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> wrote:
>
> This is directly in line with the v6ops charter:
>
> The IPv6 Operations Working Group (v6ops) develops guidelines for the
> operation of a shared IPv4/IPv6 Internet and provides operational
> guidance on how to deploy IPv6 into existing IPv4-only networks, as
> well as into new network installations.
>
> The main focus of the v6ops WG is to look at the immediate
> deployment issues; more advanced stages of deployment and transition
> are a lower priority.
>
>
> Actually, it isn't, really. The charter is operational guidance for
> the IPv4/IPv6 Internet. Not host requirements.
>
> In fact, if you look at the numbered list in the charter, the items
> are "identify operational issues and determine solutions", "identify
> potential security risks", "identify portions of the specs that can
> cause operational concerns", and "analyze solutions for deploying
> IPv6 within network environments". None of those cover this
> document.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This communication is confidential. We only send and receive email on
> the basis of the terms set out at
> www.rogers.com/web/content/emailnotice
> <http://www.rogers.com/web/content/emailnotice>
>
>
>
> Ce message est confidentiel. Notre transmission et réception de
> courriels se fait strictement suivant les modalités énoncées dans
> l’avis publié à www.rogers.com/aviscourriel
> <http://www.rogers.com/aviscourriel >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>