[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)
Thinking back after discussions with Jim et al, I have one additional
issue to highlight:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> >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.
...
Most importantly:
> as i said in IETF54 plenary, there's no need to deploy fancy IPv6
> network. keep it simple, stupid and robust.
There are two cases, I think:
1) network (ISP/core) transition. Folks who feel stuff like IGP or BGP
tunneling is really needed etc.
Most probably agree that complexity in the core networks is highly
undesirable.
2) site/home transition. Current "approved" toolbox offers no solutions
to e.g. provide IPv6 access through NAT's (well, it's a double-edged
sword..), and some other solutions like ISATAP may be useful especially in
large networks e.g. where admins wouldn't want to bother to build proper
dual-stack infrastructure.
--
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