Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-anderson-v6ops-siit-dc-01.txt

[Tore Anderson <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

* Brian E Carpenter

> The substantive comment is on the positioning of your proposal. Basically
> I think it is a Good Thing to describe this solution, and its pros and
> cons. But I still think that for many established operators it's not yet
> clear that it's the best choice. So I think that
> 
> (a) Appendix B.4 (Dual Stack) should cite RFC 6883 as a full exploration
> of the dual stack option. It does after all contain a hidden reference to
> your draft: "Some ICPs who already have satisfactory operational experience
> with IPv6 might consider an IPv6-only strategy, with IPv4 clients being
> supported by translation or proxy in front of their IPv6 content servers."
> 
> (b) I also think the first lines of1.1 (Motivation and Goals) are a bit too
> much like opinion - ultimately it should be each operator's choice what
> they do. Rather than deconstructing your text, I suggest the following
> friendly amendment:
> 
>    Historically, dual stack [RFC4213] [RFC6883] has been the recommended way to
>    transition from an IPv4-only environment to one capable of serving
>    IPv6 users.  However, for data centre operators and Internet content
>    providers, dual stack operation has a number of disadvantages
>    compared to single stack operation.  In particular, running two
>    protocols rather than one results in increased complexity and
>    operational overhead, with a very low expected return on investment
>    in the short to medium term while few end-users only have connectivity
>    to the IPv6 Internet.  Furthermore, the dual stack approach does not
>    in any way help with the depletion of the IPv4 address space.
> 
>    Therefore, some operators may prefer an approach in which they only
>    need to operate one protocol in the data centre as they prepare for
>    the future.  The design goals are:

Thank you! I've added the reference in B.4 and used your suggested text
for 1.1, so it'll be part of -02. You can see the result here:
https://github.com/toreanderson/ietf/blob/master/siit-dc.raw.txt

> Something very strange has happened in these two references:
> 
> 10.2. Informative References
> 
> 
>    [I-D.anderson-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat]
>               tore, t., "SIIT-DC: Dual Translation Mode", draft-
>               anderson-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat-00 (work in progress),
>               September 2014.
> 
>    [I-D.gont-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation]
>               Gont, F., Will, W., and t. tore, "Deprecating the
>               Generation of IPv6 Atomic Fragments", draft-gont-6man-
>               deprecate-atomfrag-generation-01 (work in progress),
>               August 2014.

This I do not quite understand. This strangeness seems to originate from:

http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.anderson-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat.xml
and
http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.gont-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation.xml

I have no idea what's happened, but I will try to figure it out. Thanks
for pointing it out!

Best regards,
Tore Anderson