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

[Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>]

Fred,

I am monitoring the conversation, but have been a bit slow responding to email. For the last two days I have been distracted, delivering both of my kids to college. 

                                              Ron


> -----Original Message-----
> From: v4tov6transition-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v4tov6transition-
> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 10:42 AM
> To: huang cancan
> Cc: IPv6 v6ops; Ron Bonica; v4tov6transition@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] Some opinions about establish a new WG
> 
> Copying my AD. He's on the list, but I know I monitor more closely
> discussions I am copied on, and I suspect he does as well.
> 
> On Aug 27, 2010, at 6:51 AM, huang cancan wrote:
> 
> >     - Do the working group's activities overlap with those of another
> >       working group?  If so, it may still be appropriate to create
> the
> >       working group, but this question must be considered carefully
> by
> >       the Area Directors as subdividing efforts often dilutes the
> >       available technical expertise.
> > //This question was also discussed in the side group. I only copy
> them here.
> >
> > 1) V6ops has not implemented item 4 in its charter and that it is
> better to split the work into two WGs, to spread the workload.
> >
> > " 4. Publish Informational or BCP RFCs that identify and analyze
> solutions for deploying IPv6 within common network environments, such
> as ISP Networks, Enterprise Networks, Unmanaged Networks (Home/Small
> Office), and Cellular Networks. "
> 
> You no doubt went to http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/charter/ to
> find the charter. May I request that you select "documents" on that
> page or (equivalent) go to http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/ and
> survey the RFCs output by the working group? It has gone to some
> lengths to do this.
> 
> > 2)I see the following text in v6ops charter:
> >
> >> The main focus of the v6ops WG is to look at the immediate
> deployment issues; more advanced stages of deployment and transition
> are a lower priority.
> >
> > I want to work on "more advanced stages of transition" that is out of
> scope for v6ops. Some operators would like to focus on operational
> issues related to the final phases of transition of v4 networks to v6,
> i.e. the protection of v4 applications that need to continue to be
> operational for all users while the networks are gradually transitioned
> from v4 to v6.
> 
> Let me put this in context.
> 
> When Kurtis and I took over the working group in 2004, there were quite
> a number of people that really wanted to talk about their favorite cool
> tool for helping people make the transition. There was discussion at
> the time of a separate working group for the purpose, and in any event
> v6ops was instructed to not build protocols and with respect to
> transition tool, to only generate requirements. That work eventually
> went to behave and softwire. You will hear me tell people with some
> regularity to take a draft to a different working group due to charter
> issues, and this will be the usual reason.
> 
> The continuation of IPv4 service during transition, what I call the
> "coexistence phase", is at this point very near term transition issue,
> and is the subject in part of
> 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn
>   "An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition", Sheng
>   Jiang, Dayong Guo, Brian Carpenter, 18-Jun-10,
>   <draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn-01.txt>
> 
> which will go into working group last call on 12 September. I would
> encourage the operators to read and comment on it. Frankly, the final
> phases of transition will not be about "keeping IPv4 alive" as much as
> "how best to turn it off".
> 
> In any event, it has been a while since we updated the charter; if the
> charter itself is at issue, we should discuss that. You are correct
> that the question is no longer, if it ever actually was actually, "how
> to deploy IPv6". The current phase is "coexistence" more than
> "deployment", and perhaps the charter needs to say that.
> _______________________________________________
> v4tov6transition mailing list
> v4tov6transition@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition