Re: [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

> Thanks for your answer. I agree with you in principle, as a Service
> Provider we need some guidelines that help us with v4 to v6
> co-existence an transition phases, and we really need them now, but we
> should try to avoid fragmenting and/or duplicating the work in
> different places/working groups.

<rant>

bingo!  we already did ng6trans, i think it was called.  it exploded in
a thousand pieces of mostly unnecessary inventions.  but lots of folk
did get on author lists.

i would also caution against exploring the space of how to make it so
that networks that have been sickly broken with things such as cgn can
claim to also handle ipv6.  make your bed, lie in it.  let cgn have fun
in behave or wherever.

and the working tunnel-v6-through-v4 tools we have either work through
the we-can-sell-monsterous-spof-to-carriers or they can hack on the
perpetuata-ipv4-and-rfc1918-forever gadgets until the v6 tunneling tools
do work.  just do it under a rock where such things belong.

sez Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>:

> That's actually incorrect; v6ops is about the operation of IPv6 networks

yep.  but not about how to pretend an rfc 1918 v4 network can be called
a v6 network.

<portmanteau>

sez From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>

> These sound more like training issues that are better handled by ops
> folks, and ops folks generally participate more in groups like NANOG
> and other *NOGs.  There are also some very relevant IPv6 operations
> mailing lists that handle tactical issues.
> ...
> Also, to be frank, i do not believe the majority of the participants
> in the IETF even work or have current experience at network operators.

both ears and the tail!

sez Brian Carpenter:

>> Also, to be frank, i do not believe the majority of the participants
>> in the IETF even work or have current experience at network
>> operators.
> Then we'd better get contributions from the minority that do.

where was that box of q-tips?

sez Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>:

> IMHO, traditional dual-stack is not viable for transition.  There are
> not incentives for me to dual stack at home, work, or while mobile.

i agree that DS is not what you want off the backbone.  v6 with nat64
should be encouraged at home and at work.  but i think you want the isps
to have dual stack backbones for a while.

randy