[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

- I think the idea behind having a small set of "core" transition mechanism handled by the "official" v6 ops IETF wg might make sense.
- but I also think that we are still in very early stage of IPv6 deployment (compared to the full blown IPv6-only internet that might happen in a few years... ;-)))
- which tells me that it is not the time to completly cut solutions/protocols/ that might fit in some environments. It is just too early for a so important technology for the future of the internet (i.e. ipv6).

My suggestion is:
- have a process in IETF (compared to Jim, I can't think of another organisation to do that, and would be not an overall good idea to do it) that would work on all non-core transition mechanism (i.e. mechanism not chosen by v6ops as wg items) and the goal, for now, would have them published, if agreeable by the process as either Informational or experimental.
- this way, those people working on products/solutions/experimentation/.... will have a forum to discuss these mechanisms and have a spec that will produce interoperable implementations through a stable document mechanism (i.e. RFC publication)
- based on feedback over time, implementations, "market acceptance: i.e. how successful this or that solution is used and deployed", ..., the v6ops and/or the IESG and/or the right instance in IETF could reconsider, later on, to "promote" one or many of those "experimental/informational specs to the standard track.
- I'm enough convinced that I can commit to spend time on this to start/work on this proposed process with the ADs/v6ops chairs/... if this is an accepted idea within the community.

To me, it is much highly prefereable to have interoperable implementations of non-core transition mechanisms that many specs that are floating around without any status and stability that will produce non-interoperable implementations.

Marc.


-- jeudi, septembre 05, 2002 12:22:23 +0900 Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <itojun@iijlab.net> wrote/a écrit:

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




------------------------------------------
Marc Blanchet
Viagénie
tel: +1-418-656-9254x225

------------------------------------------
http://www.freenet6.net: IPv6 connectivity
------------------------------------------
http://www.normos.org: IETF(RFC,draft),
 IANA,W3C,... standards.
------------------------------------------