Re: [v4tov6transition] Some opinions about establish a new WG

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

will it cause you pain if i send this?

randy

--

From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] Some opinions about establish a new WG

i think we are actually in agreement.  as i said, i was only picking on
terminology.  and if mrs. greenberg has to be loaded on the train, who
better than we?

>> my apologies for being picky again.  but is this really about
>> transition, or more about yet another complex solution for how to
>> hack ipv6 through a severely damaged ipv4 network?  i.e. it's a
>> we're-not-gonna-transition draft.  maybe we should call it ipv4
>> 'intransigent' technology :)
> That's not how I read it. I read it as pretty responsive to what the
> operators on v4tov6transition@ietf.org are asking: "while we deploy
> IPv6 with global addressing, we have an existing IPv4 business to
> maintain. We have issues in how we do that. How should we do that?"

the problem is that, as far as i know, it is s/while/until/.  i.e. the
nat444 (and similar) networks are not actually deploying ipv6 with
global addressing.

it is not that i am objecting to this work being done, someone needs to
rescue their vic^h^h^hcustomers.  i just have a problem calling it
'transition' when the network is not actually being transitioned.  the
vic^h^h^hcustomers are being given strange tools to tunnel over/through
ever more damaged ipv4 networks.

> It says, in essence, "run two networks in parallel".

does it?  or does it say, run a heavily natted rfc1918 network and
provide tunnel overlays for ipv6?  dual-stack is two networks in
parallel.

and, btw, we have seen that, where the two networks of a dual-stack
deployment are non-congruent, noc calls breed [0].  and tunnels are
non-congruent, and have similar employment opportunities for noccers.

> I don't think, though, that v6ops - an operationally-focussed working
> group - can practically say "we're only going to look at the issues of
> networks that have finished deployment;

i guess, if it has to happen, it should be in v6ops.  my altzheimer's
device is saying that i chartered ngtrans, and i did read george
santayana back in school.

randy

---

[0] - just try turning on multi-protocol is-is on a local c7200 image,
      for a fun example.