RE: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

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

Pekka,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi]
> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 7:31 AM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino; Brian E Carpenter; Fred L. Templin;
> v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops) 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Bound, Jim wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> For (over?) 95% of folks, they're just distraction.  And what 
> we want here
> is to get deployments going.  There's little need for 
> anything fancy if
> you don't require it. 

Deployment is going as best it can right now.  See the NTT MSC announcment that came out yesterday in Malaysia that is native IPv6.  I don't think ISATAP, DSTM, or Teredo are "fancy" but solid mechanisms that work and for those moving at very fast pace.

The mechanisms I feel are imperative for wide deployment are as follows:

Basic Tunnels
6to4
ISATAP
Teredo
DSTM
BIA (in some cases but caution is needed)

NAT-PT and SIIT should be last resort and not used unless there is no choice.

So not including NAT-PT and SIIT above that is 6 mechanisms.  That is not to much for any user I know to absorb and understand.   They are all deployed and implemented and all will work and all together as package permit users to adopt IPv6 without the use of Network Address Translation.  Teredo though there are many parts is very doable on the Intranet, Extranet, and Internet.  It will work.  

DSTM+ISATAP+Teredo+6to4 have multiple combinations also where they can work together.

I see two key areas of deployment where there is real money to be made for IPv6.

One is where technology is being built for military operations with IPv6 and many of what is called the Intelligent War Fighter visions will not even use IPv4 for things like sensor devices and other things I won't get into.  They are in the factory now being built for 4 years from now.  Using anything with IPv4 as core is a non-starter.
Sure there will be legacy IPv4 things to speak with but thats where ISATAP and DSTM come in but not 6to4 or Teredo.

The other is Mobile IPv6.  Mobile IPv4 simply will not work except on an Intranet because anywhere NAT exists it kills true roaming without a "reconnect".  Mobile IPv6 handsets require IPv6 and if they need IPv4 it is temporary because like the NTT MSC case all the initial services for the user are hosted with IPv6 like Web, Database, etc.

What is happening is that unless vendors, operators, and some other entities I won't mention begin to make money on IPv6 they are going to stop momentum.  Fortuneately we are seeing real purchase orders for IPv6 and boxes and software be sold at significant levels to warrant continued engineering and market investments. But those returns are not from the large mass that will move with LCD mechanisms or the 80% that will do as you say and want universal solutions (as Brian suggested).

So the catch-22 is that the 20% of custom users is where we will all make our money for the next 3 years.  Then the masses will begin conversion.  So my issue is that to stop work on what we are doing that will make money is crazy in the IETF.  Maybe we need an advanced Ipv6 transition area as Brian suggested but if that don't happen fast the vendors and entities that want to deploy this 20% will not wait for the IETF and do it out of band and create a storm of defacto standards for IPv6 that will compete with the IETF in the market.  They have no choice and will not loose the mony waiting on 2 and 3 year discussions of how to do transition or settle for universal compromised solutions.


> 
> I don't think all of these non-basic, complex, fringe(?) 
> mechanisms should
> be discarded -- quite the contrary.  But this is probably(?) 
> not the right 
> place.

I am not sure yet.  Randy Bush has been saying IPv6 is here as operator and I agree. How IPv6 deploy is still TBD.  Why should not this true 20% deployment sector recieve the work from v6ops effort?  I think not doing it is not wise.

> 
> Waiting for nice mechanism "X" is also a good excuse to delay 
> transition
> btw.

No one has to wait.  They are defined and done.

> 
> > 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.  [...]
>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I could say probably over 99% of folks doing this are not living in 
> today's world.

This is simply not true I hope my above mail helps change your mind on this statement above as its as far as I can take to convince you and others.  

> 
> IPv4 just isn't ready to be "as-needed" at the moment, or 
> you're probably
> using it in very simple ways (e.g. www browsing only which works quite
> well with NAT too :-).  It's IMO very questionable to approach IPv4 
> needs with an "ad-hoc" ways when clearly the requirements for 
> IPv4 are 
> not, in reality, ad-hoc.

Ad hoc means the use of IPv4 is dicouraged as a policy and used only when necessary.  So maybe adhoc was wrong term on my part.

Many users want to run at 1000 miles an hour away from IPv4 NAT it is hurting them bad to evolve their networks for true peer-to-peer computing, applications, and security.
That is driving the 20% above strongly to native IPv6 and dominant IPv6 strategy.


> 
> But this is one approach for enterprise transition.  I've 
> been asked about
> it myself a few times: organization which would want to start 
> deploying
> IPv6 internally, perhaps do some translation or proxying to reach IPv4
> sites and just wait for an usable IPv6 Internet to emerge in 
> xxx years.
> The problem with this is, really, that unless you can 
> convince (lie :-)  
> very well that xxx is not much more than 1-2, IS managers discard this
> approach as it generates no added value in the short term.  Most don't
> want to be the test-bunnies for fancy technology.

When there future business depends on IPv6 test bunnies are easy to be and that is exactly what is happening now. 

> 
> > 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.
> 
> I'd like to see this on real world (and not on fancy .ppt).  
> People always
> seem to forget that they do happen to need IPv4 for something 
> (e.g. in the
> case of routers, SNMP monitoring, RADIUS authentication for 
> logins etc.)

That is being done right now within the 20% and entire architectures are being reworked to do exactly what I say above at some pretty significant levels within the enties with Exec VP support.  Ipv6 is necessary now Pekka not an option.  Its is not a question of "if" but "when".  

regards,
/jim

>  
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
> Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
> Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
> 
> 
>