[v6ops] Re: Call For Adoption: draft-link-v6ops-6mops

Nick Buraglio <buraglio@forwardingplane.net> Mon, 12 August 2024 14:23 UTC

Return-Path: <buraglio@forwardingplane.net>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9EFCC15198C for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 07:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=forwardingplane.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zHwU4gQMGJr6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 07:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x831.google.com (mail-qt1-x831.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::831]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68F12C1519A7 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 07:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x831.google.com with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-45327512c3eso9193351cf.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 07:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=forwardingplane.net; s=google; t=1723472589; x=1724077389; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=0RX+QYi6hF2OSWsKYuA+DlRh17BldiS6lHjAgV+NtCM=; b=kcagdwOAiCTp1AE+3GQZCqp0LKV5/t034zDuKBFfg/PzawpflY4FukReg1zzPKbYnz A65ls/UhWWXh49leHKMAMT0K/jPS9VtWkAhWrf7HTgteRXUOzTjSyQfuaguFi69YITFf f8allpDv1dAWZdJnpWRCIYQVgj9xr8RTum9zk=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1723472589; x=1724077389; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=0RX+QYi6hF2OSWsKYuA+DlRh17BldiS6lHjAgV+NtCM=; b=AOc5Q3gxr0iiUtmDEUiQuxPUFVTEeiQ454N3Mlz83Sc2YRkExXFtYqt9uOIfy0E5Fo i5wQueXKHn2PWg2G3dwb7PxssedRWsWNRsiEkUmmF4QwAM9QQ3KuvVGQPCs6jO0Jf/7P +l5+0TOXwZ+b7/z/Aw07u+yNsxb2lcPxcWPBX6OAuGNaGaCA1bD9KU5vm9ZNLlcJcX5A 2EwTrdKcJsYtSMGkXSaoKBSIN1bFDSFPf7rpuJZ4vofErQCva8puU9tCgbGyEN5PtFyk uVY6guRl92vYYyr5yVF8wYribm1RYmjhruYQAY3nG8P1vUlMM+Tr3NpkPDHByObDJlhU K6wQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxuxwYf3ETHMJL7hd1+tD4doPE656oaL+sV4iCkPkpJvdlGT2pe 6BfwpFTdJLFujxry2El2aWfLzWLVPpIOMce4z6aLpBA+NhFS/6B6CaDF5miiWc6OVIPWDNN4Fz7 ieKBWqDzl1y7cpilTw0Kbaw8Rp8rpKtJfZ5VkYRvdG+m+ehg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEXv4VxHBm6kdTzHy+wjKFIZFJq8P5fWBTisPXsdtRypAptAMvPR6QC65IqXF7+A/tnn07dt/Mh6URAeONeVI0=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:a0e:b0:44f:8977:6db8 with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-45349a366cemr7023331cf.42.1723472589076; Mon, 12 Aug 2024 07:23:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BL0PR05MB5316B10BC93B52412415EC79AEBE2@BL0PR05MB5316.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAFU7BAS7Wez2o=56gOd8OmHHCi6CbopoAsk7jAWUWdZ1FADdag@mail.gmail.com> <001801dae97e$53ef6540$fbce2fc0$@tsinghua.org.cn> <CANMZLAbZiYhLGB5m_RHbh1aYok770ca3_K_TghSMGqTUvGmNRg@mail.gmail.com> <DB9PR07MB7771686DB74D4C7D3905E3FFD6B92@DB9PR07MB7771.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <003801dae988$8b84ef20$a28ecd60$@tsinghua.org.cn> <CACMsEX_8AD5w2ka=suYg6hGoW8S4-vSe2XxHsT3wMcPNWkuf_w@mail.gmail.com> <93377960-3C48-4B54-ABD5-7C96FBDAE7B0@consulintel.es>
In-Reply-To: <93377960-3C48-4B54-ABD5-7C96FBDAE7B0@consulintel.es>
From: Nick Buraglio <buraglio@forwardingplane.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 09:22:58 -0500
Message-ID: <CACMsEX9Jnd_obsMfxp_q_y9D71Ug=gUGb37kE5XS_MUbnvLuPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "jordi.palet@consulintel.es" <jordi.palet=40consulintel.es@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000073d74c061f7d3bf0"
Message-ID-Hash: LPWTZWXKBMVJBKFMBDYPCBNAPQT4RPAD
X-Message-ID-Hash: LPWTZWXKBMVJBKFMBDYPCBNAPQT4RPAD
X-MailFrom: buraglio@forwardingplane.net
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-v6ops.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [v6ops] Re: Call For Adoption: draft-link-v6ops-6mops
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/rvgeM9yDFy3Pv0Ttjal52_JgFjE>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:v6ops-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:v6ops-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:v6ops-leave@ietf.org>

On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 3:41 AM jordi.palet@consulintel.es <jordi.palet=
40consulintel.es@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> While I agree that IPv6-only and IPv6-mostly are different things, I
> disagree that “IPv6-only” is widely understood as “no IPv4”.
>

In the context I work in it is fairly well understood to mean no IPv4, but
I believe you are correct - I was never able to get a satisfactory and
definitive definition of what that means. In my opinion (no hat),
operationally, this is an important detail. I would welcome a definition of
this and as I have expressed in the past, I believe we should take this on
as a WG.


> As explained in
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palet-v6ops-ipv6-only/
>
> The problem comes because “IPv6-only” needs a context to be correctly
> defined.
>
> Should I revive that document and include IPv6-mostly definition there?
>
> Saludos,
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
> El 8 ago 2024, a las 18:21, Nick Buraglio <buraglio@forwardingplane.net>
> escribió:
>
> *No hat*
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 6:47 AM Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
> wrote:
>
>
> No.  Declaring the “IPv6-Only” network does not preclude that the network
> can support IPv4 communication.
>
>
> From the perspective of an operator migrating off of IPv6 and onto
>
> IPv6 exclusively, I strongly disagree. Either by policy or by
> technical limitation (configured or inherent), "IPv6-only" is widely
> understood to mean "no IPv4".
>
>
> The IPv4 communication can still be transmitted via the tunnel technology,
> that is “IPv4 Communication as a IPv6 service”
>
>
> I think that is out of scope. Whatever is inside the tunnel - and
> thereby "invisible" to the network substrate is irrelevant. The tunnel
> would still be required to operate over IPv6.
>
>
>
>
> Comparing with evolution of mobile technologies, there is no operator
> declare their network is “4G-mostly network” when they want to put forward
> to the 4G phase, but need still support the 3G host/endpoint.
>
>
> Again, I think this is orthogonal. That is a lower layer. If I ran a
> network that was 70% Ethernet and 30% SONET I wouldn't call it
> "Ethernet only", either. I would describe it as "mostly ethernet".
>
>
>
>
> Introducing the “IPv6-Mostly Network” concept, in my POV, is worse than
> the “Dual Stack”, and it will also mask some hinder problems that can’t be
> emerged at the dual-stack phase.
>
>
> As someone that has been working on these migrations to IPv6-only for
> several years, I can assure you it is not the same as dual-stack. It
> is a welcomed transition strategy that has a visible end site with an
> operator incentive to continue the migration, whereas with dual-stack
> there was no real incentive to move past it.
>
>
>
>
> When the operators declare clearly they are toward to the “IPv6-Only
> Network”, they can certainly accelerate the conversion of IPv6-only
> application, and also the gradual removal of the outdated hosts. But,
> introduce the concept of “IPv6-Mostly Network”, can give the transition
> more time to take action-----Similar with the effect of “Dual Stack”.
>
>
> See above. Dual-stack was a necessary step, and one that the server
> and service side probably still needs. 6mostly is the next phase for
> the *access* networks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards
>
>
>
> Aijun Wang
>
> China Telecom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 发件人: Tim Chown [mailto:Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk]
> 发送时间: 2024年8月8日 18:55
> 收件人: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; Aijun Wang <
> wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
> 抄送: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>; IPv6 Ops WG <
> v6ops@ietf.org>
> 主题: Re: [v6ops] Re: 答复: Re: Call For Adoption: draft-link-v6ops-6mops
>
>
>
> Indeed, it’s a very nice way to get on the path to removing IPv4 and a
> nice term for that process; the “most” referring to the property that most
> hosts on a subnet switch to IPv6-only, while those not capable continue to
> use IPv4 for some or all operation.
>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> From: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> Date: Thursday, 8 August 2024 at 11:51
> To: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
> Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, IPv6 Ops WG <
> v6ops@ietf.org>
> Subject: [v6ops] Re: 答复: Re: Call For Adoption: draft-link-v6ops-6mops
>
> Aijun,
>
>
>
> I disagree. When talking to site operators who want to proceed towards
> IPv6 infastructure but have vital systems that cannot be updated from IPv4
> immediately, the new term "IPv6 mostly" is exactly what they want to hear.
> Many sites are in that situation but would like to avoid dual stack on the
> wire.
>
>
>
> (via tiny screen & keyboard)
> Regards,
>        Brian Carpenter
>
>
>
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2024, 22:33 Aijun Wang, <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> It seems that the newly assigned name "IPv6-Mostly network" may lead
> confusion or need more explanations to the customers.
> How about change the document name solely to "Deployment and Operations
> Consideration on IPv6-Only Network", and omit the introduction of new
> concept of "IPv6-Mostly network"?
>
> And, for the operator transit to IPv6-Only network, besides the C2S(client
> to server) communication, the C2C(client to client) communication
> requirement should also need to be addressed. It seems the document is lack
> of consideration for such part.
>
>
> Best Regards
>
> Aijun Wang
> China Telecom
>
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: forwardingalgorithm@ietf.org [mailto:forwardingalgorithm@ietf.org]
> 代表 Jen Linkova
> 发送时间: 2024年8月5日 22:22
> 收件人: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
> 抄送: v6ops@ietf.org
> 主题: [v6ops] Re: Call For Adoption: draft-link-v6ops-6mops
>
> The draft can be found at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-link-v6ops-6mops/
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 11:21 PM Ron Bonica <rbonica=
> 40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>
> Friends,
>
> This message begins a Call For Adoption for draft-link-v6ops-6mops. Please
> read the draft and send your comments in response to this email.
>
> The call for adoption will close on August 19, 2024.
>
>                                                              Ron
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers, Jen Linkova
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org
>