Re: [v6ops] draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment and draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

[Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]>]

Hi Barbara,
Thank you for being in favor of the adoption of draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment.
The fact that the configuration for 464XLAT and lw4o6 via TR-069 can be simple is relevant.

Regards,

Giuseppe

-----Original Message-----
From: STARK, BARBARA H [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 5:12 PM
To: 'Fred Baker' <[e-mail]>; '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>
Cc: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>; '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [v6ops] draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment and draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

<sigh> This time with comments. </sigh>

> > For lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison, on behalf of the authors of 
> > draft-vf-
> v6ops-ipv6-deployment I can say we are in favor of the WG adoption. 
> Not only is it a good description of the transition technologies to 
> IPv6, but it also constitutes a basis for our draft.
> 
> OK, let me put this to the working group. We asked about adoption of 
> draft- lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison once before (in January 2020), 
> and got essentially no response. It has come up on the list twice 
> since, in July and in November. The authors of 
> draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment would like to see it adopted. The two 
> sets of authors are disjoint. I therefore have at least nine people 
> that would like to see us adopt and publish it. What other folks have opinions, pro or con?

I've looked at this draft and am not in favor of adopting it with its current scope and (lack of) focus.
I think the statistics will be stale before publication.
I was getting confused in reading various sections as to which market segment it was trying to address.
The draft jumps around various market segments in its various sections, and it's often unclear as to which market segment a section is referring to. I should point out that a lot of enterprise network equipment involved in IPv6 transition is also referred to as "CPE", since that is a generic term that means "Customer Premises Equipment". But the enterprise CPE that provides IP connectivity to the Internet and the mass market CPE that provides IP connectivity to the Internet are very dissimilar.

If this draft were to be more focused in what it wanted to accomplish, there might be something to adopt.

> Along the same lines, are there opinions regarding the adoption of 
> draft-vf- v6ops-ipv6-deployment?

I've looked at this draft and am in favor of adoption. I think it has some very useful and practical information.
One thing I'd like to mention is that if anyone wants configuration for 464XLAT and lw406 via TR-069, this is very simple to achieve. Just tell me what parameters you think are needed (like enable/disable and any parameters that need to be configured) and agree to review the proposed additions to TR-181 (which I would provide by email to specific people or I could liaise to the WG) and it can be in the next release of TR-181 (most likely end of this year).

Barbara