[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 6:56 AM, Cameron Byrne <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Fred Baker <email@example.com> wrote:
>> This is to initiate a two week working group last call
>> of draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines. Please read it now. If you find
>> nits (spelling errors, minor suggested wording changes, etc), comment to the
>> authors; if you find greater issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or
>> finding additional issues that need to be addressed, please post your
>> comments to the list.
>> We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the document
>> as well as its content. If you have read the document and believe it to be
>> of operational utility, that is also an important comment to make.
> My feed back is this document, as it stands, is not an operational
> utility since I do not believe it helps people in operating an access
> network (most networks have end nodes on them, backbone ISPs know what
> to do). Do we need yet another anthology of IPv6 tools? I do not
> think there is good reason that this document should move forward
> since it does not add anything new or, IMHO, good advice to people
> with numbering problems.
> Here are my concerns:
> 1. The only reason people want to deploy IPv6 is because of IPv4
> exhaust, right? Yet this document recommends dual-stack as the
> right approach forward. The IETF should know that DS does not solve a
> numbering problem and there is no incentive for folks to go dual
> stack. DS is pure altruism to make IPv6 easier to the stragglers and
> free-riders. But, even technology forward companies like Cisco and
> Ericsson do not have dual stack websites today, 10+ years after the
> IETF told everyone they should go DS. So once again, from on high,
> "do as I say, not as i do".
> 2. If this document is to take a realist view and assert the IETF
> position as a though leader and guide to the future, it should paint
> the real picture of IPv4 exhaust and provide real solutions to what
> happens when there is no more IPv4 to be had. It should also, for
> historical perspective, explain why DS did not work so people can
> avoid going down this path.... or at the least, know that going DS is
> not the end-state where we don't have to worry about IPv4 any more
> .... DS is just a multi-protocol network that is more expensive and
> more complicated. In some corners of the world, when i tell people DS
> does not solve the number problem, it is the first time they have
> looked at DS with a critical eye.
> 3.. Fred made it clear that deployment is turning something on.
> Transition is turning something off. This document is called
> transition but it does not recommend or articulate how to turn IPv4
> off in any detail.
> 4. Perhaps it would be helpful to specify a scope for this document?
> Enterprise networks? Access networks? Transit ISPs?
> ps. Just for grins, i tried the once announced
> http://www.ipv6.cisco.com/ and it works! But, alas, it is IPv6-only
> not dual stack!
Just a few more comments
1. Please reconsider explicitly recommending dual stack. Perhaps put
it some verbiage about "no pain, no gain"
2. Revise statement about literals. The current unqualified and
unbounded statement without context gives the wrong impression.
I believe it is best not to state:
some applications - notably http, ftp, SIP, and others - carry IP
addresses in the application layer and expect them to be useful to
their peers, which require care in handling.
it may be more accurate to state that:
Communications involving IPv4 referral, in particular IPv4-literals
within certain protocols and formats such at HTML, will fail when
passed to IPv6-only hosts since the host does not have an IPv4 address
to source the IPv4 communications or an IPv4 route. Current
measurement for HTTP on the public internet show that literals break
0.2% of the world wide web.
3. Squarely face the issue of a fragmented internet where there is
ipv6.google.com, ipv6.t-mobile.com, www.ipv6.cisco.com
www.v6.facebook.com as well as aaaa whitelist that Yahoo and Google
are pushing. I believe the reality of these sites and the DNS
whitelist are more votes against DS.