Re: [v6ops] Update of RFC 7084 -- Re: Slides from AWS, SAP, ESnet, Dell in side meeting and call for volunteers on 3 research topics

On 07-Aug-23 07:24, Ted Lemon wrote:
> That’s what I was getting at when I said we might not be ready. I don’t think we should require anything if we don’t have a specific thing to require. Requiring half a dozen different things will make people not want to use the RFC.

However, RFC 9313 doesn't provide a simple decision tree for an operator, or a set of valid use cases. I'd like to see that somewhere. Possibly in draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay or possibly not in an RFC at all.

     Brian

> 
> Op zo 6 aug 2023 om 14:39 schreef Gábor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu <mailto:lencse@hit.bme.hu>>
> 
>     Dear Ted,
> 
>     8/6/2023 8:18 PM keltezéssel, Ted Lemon írta:
>     [...]
>      > Personally I think that we should decide what to recommend if we
>      > specify IPv4aas. 8585 mentions numerous options. This doesn’t feel
>      > like something that should be in a router requirements document. I
>      > suspect we have enough operational experience at this point to make a
>      > specific recommendation; probably NAT64/464xlat. If we aren’t ready to
>      > do that, I don’t think we’re ready to include this in 7084bis.
>      >
>     I do not think that a draft that recommends any one of the five IPv4aaS
>     solutions (464XLAT, DS-Lite, Lw4o6, MAP-E, MAP-T) as THE GOOD SOLUTION
>     will achieve consensus.
> 
>     In RFC 9313, we followed the approach that we analyzed the pros and cons
>     of all the above five solutions and left the decision to the network
>     operators. It was not only a tactic to get our draft published. I
>     honestly believe that depending on various circumstances, one of them
>     can be the most appropriate solution in one case, and another one can be
>     more suitable in another case.
> 
>     So my suggestion is that if 7084bis will be done then it should not
>     elaborate much about IPv4aaS, but is should talk about the general
>     router requirements plus regarding the IPv4aaS solutions, it should cite
>     RFC 8585 and say that all five solutions should be supported by the CEs,
>     and also cite RFC 9313 as a guideline that helps the operators to choose
>     the one that is most appropriate for their specific case.
> 
>     What do you think?
> 
>     Best regards,
> 
>     Gábor
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     v6ops mailing list
>     v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops