Re: [v6ops] About Req for Comments - "Transition to IPv6"

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Thank you very much for the pointer.  In it I could spot
the following footnote: "[4] IPv6-Only refers to network environments in
which use of the IPv4 protocol has been eliminated."

In my humble opinion,

I think, if I am not wrong, that there are no such networks in which
IPv4 protocol has been eliminated.  On one hand, a network is made of
computers, and IPv4 stacks are still present in almost all computers.
On another hand, there might be some ptp links (not networks, but
individual links) that run IPv6 only.

That is why it is hard to agree on the assumption of IPv4 being 
eliminated somewhere.  Worse, it makes look as if the goal of that 
'IPv6-only' is to arrive at that same situation which in fact does use IPv4.

There is a draft at IETF in this v6ops WG, about the term 'IPv6-only'.
We could improve that draft.  We could refer to it as well.

Further, in this Req for Comments 'Transition to IPv6' this text makes 
me think they set the wrong goal:
> In fact, many of these organizations have migrated, or are planning 
> to migrate, to “IPv6-only”4 infrastructures to reduce operational 
> concerns associated with maintaining two distinct network 
> infrastructures. The intent of this updated memorandum is to 
> communicate the requirements for completing the operational 
> deployment of IPv6 across all Federal information systems and 
> services, and help agencies overcome barriers that prevent them from 
> migrating to IPv6-only systems. Going forward, the Federal
> government plans to deliver its information services, operate its
> networks, and access the services of others using only IPv6.

The guidance would, better, make think about the removal of the IPv4
stack.  For example, uncheck the IPv4 box in Windows ethernet interface
properties, or remove 127.0.0.1 from /etc/hosts, remove A entries from
DNS, or similar.  These are criteria easily checked by more people.

In my humble opinion.

Alex


Le 05/03/2020 à 14:33, Morizot Timothy S a écrit :
> Since the formal request for comment has been published on the 
> federal register, a direct link to the draft as published on the 
> Federal CIO website (within OMB) might facilitate review and comment.
> I see some confusion about how to read the draft memorandum itself.
> 
> https://www.cio.gov/assets/resources/internet-protocol-version6-draft.pdf
>
>
>
> 
HTH,
> 
> Scott
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: v6ops <[e-mail]> On 
> Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 7:08 AM 
> To: [e-mail] Subject: Re: [v6ops] About Req for Comments - 
> "Transition to IPv6"
> 
> 
> 
> Le 05/03/2020 à 13:25, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit :
>> This is why I've insisted several times in having a document 
>> describing what is IPv6-only ...
>> 
>> I can update it again if the WG is interested ...
>> 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-palet-v6ops-ipv6-only-04
> 
> To me it might make sense to start from there.
> 
> At this time, although I can click on the URL, it leads to a phrase 
> "The attached draft memorandum prepared by the Office of Management 
> and Budget, in collaboration with the Federal Chief Information 
> Officers Council and Federal Chief Information Security Officers 
> Council, supports the Administration’s goals for modernizing Federal
>  Information Technology".  I can not find that 'draft memorandum'.
> 
> I can not find precisely what are the questions to comment on.  Or 
> there might be no precise question, just an overall indication of 
> ambition.
> 
> Alex
> 
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>