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

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy Bush
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 7:52 PM
> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org; v4tov6transition@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC
> 
> > 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.

This seems like it could be misinterpreted through exaggeration;
for example, I certainly don't see thousands of pieces. It also
seems to take a swipe at contributors who have helped shape the
standards through consistent hard work over the course of many
years.

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> 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