[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Discussion of draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt
- To: Margaret Wasserman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Discussion of draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt
- From: Fred Baker <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 10:54:05 -0700
- Cc: "'firstname.lastname@example.org '" <email@example.com>
- Iim-sig: v:"1.1"; h:"imail.cisco.com"; d:"cisco.com"; z:"home"; m:"krs"; t:"1116610999.898883"; x:"432200"; a:"rsa-sha1"; b:"nofws:1911"; e:"Iw=="; n:"sQYarK2E51MdcTiUqeif3F7cWdxIfoCiXhdfb9vD5ee/j0jXL15gbFxF2p" "XIweAblu0N6XAgK7k+wrbr7bQDJaCDqOmzqpRUBjIRQAXQ7NzadpmR3pUL6wxaRUtW+c43sl9jC" "50Qg1sXHpPjt8Y+Y16ioyQAQAdSunM4YhevURc="; s:"ZwFy+T+G3hK/bmRCOCJPsPQEEHaNbX3g6SyfHlNJP3god+gyWR/po3l7kuK+6Pah7cjo1cBl" "FjVji9akWMvF9WyHMzci4oih37kvzLbQKZ4pR9Buxkkl15qxdRXMRJkxruZRek3EaKdCxnF8qCJ" "OTllsXOTwQv+kUDkqUTpSphA="; c:"From: Fred Baker <firstname.lastname@example.org>"; c:"Subject: Re: Discussion of draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt"; c:"Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 10:54:05 -0700"
- Iim-verify: s:"y"; v:"y"; r:"60"; h:"imail.cisco.com"; c:"message from imail.cisco.com verified; "
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <200505191945.PAA14818@ietf.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
I'm not at all clear that DSTM is being recommended by the working
group - or any specific transition mechanism. Our charter specifically
excludes discussion of transition mechanisms, and I note that the IESG
recently approved Teredo as a Proposed Standard, which I think means
that the IETF recommends that. And personally, I'm not convinced that
any of the proposed transition mechanisms are sufficient, as I don't
see documented anywhere a single transition mechanism simultaneously
solves all four problems:
- an IPv4-only system finding and communicating with another IPv4-only
system across an IPv6-only infrastructure
- an IPv6-only system finding and communicating with another IPv6-only
system across an IPv4-only infrastructure
- an IPv4-only system finding and communicating with an IPv6-only
- an IPv6-only system finding and communicating with an IPv4-only
My history with this document and with the DSTM proposal is that I took
over the WG last March. In the WG meeting in march, DSTM was not
discussed, and the discussion of the enterprise analysis identified a
number of items to be corrected. We have just gotten the updated
document, and it needs thorough review.
On May 20, 2005, at 9:14 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Does the WG really have consensus on this recommendation?
Later in the transition process, after the enterprise has
transitioned to a predominately IPv6 infrastructure, the architect
should implement the Dual-IP Transition Mechanism [DSTM, DSTM+]. Or
in the case of early deployment of IPv6-dominant networks DSTM can
be used too.
This whole document comes down to a brief set of recommendations, and
I think that it is important that we only make recommendations that
have the clear consensus of the WG.
I am not personally convinced that we should recommend DSTM as a
solution for this stage of network transition (I haven't even read
DSTM+, so I have no opinion on that), but perhaps I am part of the
rough? Fred, was there an explicit consensus call on each of these
recommendations that I missed while I was busy somewhere else?
If the WG does have consensus that, at some point in an enterprise
transition, administrators "should implement DSTM", what is our plan
to standardize it?