Re: [v6ops] Are we competitive?

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi XiPeng,

Mainly I agree and this is a very useful summary.

However, we should question whether RFCs are the correct way forward, rather than some kind of collaboration to produce an ideal text book.

For example, consider the 3 volumes of "TCP/IP Illustrated" by Stevens & Wright. I believe that had tremendous impact (published 1994, so no IPv6).

If we go the RFC route, won't we just end up with 520 IPv6 RFCs?

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 29-Jul-22 06:59, Xipengxiao wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 02:51:43PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>  >> Following the ongoing discussion about "IPv6-only" and why sites are still IPv4-only, I have a question: Are we competitive?
> 
>  > [Gert] This is a valid question, which I feel hard to answer for the general case.
> 
> Let me be blunt and say that IPv6 is not as competitive as we want/think.  If we are to improve, we need to have a common understanding of the current IPv6 situation, the issues and the possible solutions. Here is my 2c for starting the discussion:
> 
> IPv6 is currently like a messy forest:
> 
> ·littered with dead trees (obsolete features/solutions),
> 
> ·smell bad (many operations & performance issues),
> 
> ·too many roads inside the forest (too many transition solutions, too many address types), not well marked (without clear solution guidelines), and fairly confusing
> 
> ·the roads are difficult to walk (complex address architecture, debatable header design, many complex solutions like source/destination address selection, ND).
> 
> This forest has 1 big advantage: plenty of O2 (addresses).  Consequently, many people avoid this forest but those really need O2 come. A small number of “grey/white wizards” (the experts) live in the forest. They know every tree (feature/solution) well.  But they tend to focus on fixing individual trees than fixing the forest.
> 
> If we want to attract more residents to the forest (IPv6 adopters), it’s more important to fix the forest than to fix the trees.  Some ideas:
> 
> ·Provide better tour guide book (i.e. IPv6 solution overviews): There are about 500 IPv6-related RFCs.  Some are obsoleted and some are conflicting.  I think we should summarizing them and providing guidelines, so that people can read fewer RFCs to master IPv6.  (e.g. the ND deployment guideline draft summarizing 30+ RFCs into 1 draft)
> 
> ·Among the many possible routes (e.g. solutions), recommend only the most popular ones (e.g. recommend only Dual-Stack, 464XLAT and MAP-T among the 10+ transition solutions).
> 
> ·Provide better road signs in the forest (i.e. solution guidelines): IPv6 solutions are almost complete.  Now it’s more important to write guidelines to simplify operations than to develop more solutions.
> 
> ·Identify haphazard places in the forest, and post clear “caution” signs (i.e. identify IPv6 operations/performance issues, and provide guidelines/BCPs)
> 
> ·Enlist existing residents to share experience on how to settle into this forest (i.e. case sharing from Cisco, Alibaba etc).
> 
> BTW, upon the request of an enterprise, a few on-site attendees had a small side meeting on Monday.  Their **anonymous** opinions and future actions are summarized in the attachment for your info.  If you are interested to join the discussion and contribute, please voice up.  Thank you.  XiPeng
>