RE: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

I don't hear that from any user in that way.  What I hear is there are several good mechanisms they like and want to apply for different reasons.  

Also the one we are missing in our thinking is the user who will deploy a dominant IPv6 backbone where the only access to IPv4 is simply to reach legacy systems.  They are also the ones deploying trial Mobile IPv6 networks with Mobile IPv6 handhelds.  For them Ipv4 is to be treated as-needed basis.  They don't even want to use 6to4.  They will use ISATAP to jump-start installed base.  They will use DSTM to give out addresses in ad-hoc manner.  These folks will also spend money which is the largest hammer for any mechanism.

But the key missing point in our collective thinking is assuming this type of network for IPv6 will only happen later during IPv6 adoption.  That is plain wrong.  Many of the users of IPv6 are building new and emerging systems that will be IPv6 out of the box and the networks for first deployment.

What we need to do is flush out our assumptions on this mail list and see where we all stand.  

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino [mailto:itojun@iijlab.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 11:22 PM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: Pekka Savola; Brian E Carpenter; Fred L. Templin; 
> v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops) 
> 
> 
> >Your just plain wrong.  Do you think users are stupid?  Do you think
> >they even care about what we say here in the IETF work?  No 
> they do not.
> > What they want are IPv6 solutions.  And they will all want different
> >ones.
> 
> 	(chair hat off)
> 
> 	the comments i get from the people most is that, they 
> have big trouble
> 	picking which ngtrans mechanisms to pick (for instance, 
> which one
> 	to implement on their router, which one to deploy to 
> their network).
> 	so what we need to do is cut down number of deployment 
> mechanisms,
> 	and help people deploy network in actual use.
> 
> 	as i said in IETF54 plenary, there's no need to deploy 
> fancy IPv6
> 	network.  keep it simple, stupid and robust.
> 
> itojun
>