Re: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC

[Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.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?

Regards,

Cameron

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!