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

[Morizot Timothy S <[e-mail]>]

Facebook operates a massive global network. And yes, they are IPv6 only everywhere except their edge network where incoming connections are terminated. I don't believe the way their network operates today would function over IPv4. Microsoft is working toward that goal for their enterprise network. I'm not sure where they are for their content networks. LinkedIn is establishing all new data centers as IPv6 only. Cisco has one of their corporate site networks to IPv6 only if I recall correctly and are continuing to work toward that goal. The list is large and growing.

There are a few points about the language that may help those who are less familiar with the workings of government bodies, though, especially for people outside the US. First, this is a policy document not detailed technical implementation guidance. It's not going to drill down to device specific network configuration details. It establishes reporting requirements and compliance metrics which means that it must be possible to count whatever is being reported. "IP-enabled assets" should be interpreted in the same broad sense that applies in the federal acquisition guidelines. Basically, it means any asset that connects to a network using IP. That could be an end user client system, server, any network device, appliances, IOT devices (sensors, cameras, lights, etc.), etc. If it connects to a network at layer 3, including all the devices providing that network service, it should be considered an IP-enabled asset. If there's an IP configured anywhere on it, it's an IP enabled asset. A device providing NAT64 would still have IPv4 configured on it. A device encapsulating IPv6 in IPv4 would still have IPv4 configured on it. Perhaps that helps interpret the scope and intent of the draft policy? IPv6-only is used in contrast to dual-stacked or other transition mechanisms. The policy draft language provides no exemptions or exceptions.

HTH,

Scott