Re: [v6ops] Comment on draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices-09

On 11/2/15 7:52 PM, Philip Matthews wrote:
> Can you explain a bit more what you mean by that?  
> - Philip
> 
> 
> On 2015-11-02, at 19:02 , Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>>
>> With respect to the design-choices draft, I think it is worth to
>> mention in the discussion that backwards compatibility is a 'pro' when
>> considering PA/PI/ULA schemes for enterprise networks.  It is not a
>> drawback.

I'm not sure what is meant by backwards compatibility, there isn't any
with respect to the ipv6 elements of the deployment.

>> This (maintain IPv4 ok while migrating) is the most important
>> requirement in the networks I work.

dual stack  deployment is a common operating modality and has been for a
rather long time. there's definitely a tax to be payed with respect to
resource usage, and complexity that doesn't exist in a v6 only network,
but  support of your existing model while building the new is incremental.

>> Alex
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 

Re: [v6ops] Comment on draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices-09

Attachment: signature.asc