[v6ops] v6ops charter update discussion

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 13 April 2015 23:58 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D73971B29E7; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -113.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-113.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jSge0bBy4gsG; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C001F1B29E2; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=51478; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1428969473; x=1430179073; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=Oh+WKm0+n79GMtIe1k3DnsgJS2tE9/CphvxLi42noWY=; b=UWcQ+vlS2V9kDGmRENxIQtYX84HAlNcFdh2OHDZBbRqvDoxJTRzlGQZV lX9K7KhhFoH6znmjXhU/1JPQiVstaaLF5CXgqm+42SjnwdlqGi/WVo6dA psCfMei9tNfbrk1I+I5Ew2VnVEMeZUnn02Cs5cQ6SBXbLYXjS075XAva7 o=;
X-Files: v6ops-fred2-charter.txt, Diff_ v6ops-charter-old.txt - v6ops-fred2-charter.txt.html : 3444, 30466
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AOBQBmVyxV/4ENJK1SCoMMUlwFgxCCCMFPhgEegSRMAQEBAQEBfoQiBCMKRwUSAUABCQIEMCcEDhMGB4gPDbZylhgBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXiiyFGAYLAVGCby+BFgWGWYgIgiuBboEzWIYWgR06hjyFT4M9g00igVuCFHCBCjl/AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,573,1422921600"; d="txt'?html'217?scan'217,208,217";a="411548737"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Apr 2015 23:57:52 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com [173.36.12.88]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3DNvqoH003293 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 13 Apr 2015 23:57:52 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.151]) by xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com ([173.36.12.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:57:52 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: v6ops charter update discussion
Thread-Index: AQHQdkWm8ikSWPZ7MU+dYPCm4QvW9g==
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 23:57:52 +0000
Message-ID: <AD667352-663E-4333-ACFD-2BA0919482E0@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.68.220.154]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_003_AD667352663E4333ACFD2BA0919482E0ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/s6lHXhjeUN3GMBYaoF6DF3gnp8U>
Cc: "sunset4@ietf.org" <sunset4@ietf.org>
Subject: [v6ops] v6ops charter update discussion
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 23:58:25 -0000

Lee and I are reviewing the v6ops charter. I have attached a proposed charter and diffs against the current one. Joel has not commented on this yet, and while we have run it by the sunset4 chairs, we haven’t gotten a reading from them. Sunset4 is relevant because possibly the ipv4-as-a-service discussion would be better handled there. In this email, I’m soliciting opinions in general.

The charter update started with Lee feeling that the fourth bullet of our current charter, which reads
    4. Publish Informational or BCP RFCs that identify and analyze 
       solutions for deploying IPv6 within common network environments,
       such as ISP Networks, Enterprise Networks, Unmanaged Networks
       (Home/Small Office), and Cellular Networks.
       (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/charter/)
is largely done. We know how to deploy IPv6.

In addition, I think we need, collectively, to figure out how to get to IPv6-only. A large issue is “so how do we connect to IPv4 content and services from an IPv6-only network”, which is where ipv4-as-a-service comes in. I propose adding a bullet item regarding a road map to IPv6-only.

    4. Describe an operational roadmap to IPv6-only network deployment, 
       with or without IPv4 delivered as an overlay or translation
       service.

In my mind, that includes operational discussions of deployments and deployment issues in IPv4-as-a-service; one possible update would be to make that more explicit.

In other respects, the update is mostly editorial.

The other three tasks remain unchanged - collect operational experience, identify operational and security risks, and turn them over to other working groups - notably 6man.

Hoping for your input. Do you agree with these changes? If not, what changes, or further changes, would you recommend? 

As to proposed milestones, I’d like to believe that 

these are done:
   draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
   draft-ietf-v6ops-cidr-prefix

we can finalize and ship these by July:
   draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices
   draft-ietf-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem

and these by November:
   draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-*
   (would like a deployment report for siit-dc and siit-dc-2xlat in support)
   (would like one for 464xlat as well)

On another point, Lee and I have been discussing the operational reports we had at IETF 92, and feel that was time well spent. Those had a common thread, which was the deployment of Softwire’s MAP-E and MAP-T technologies in their networks. We are thinking about asking companies deploying IPv6 in Europe, Asia, and South America to make reports in the coming three meetings, on their IPv6 deployments and the issues they face. Would that be of general interest? How would you propose to tune that concept?