RE: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

["Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> "Fred L. Templin" wrote:
> ...
> > Summary - the wording in sections (1) and (7) seems to mandate 
> > lowest-common-denominator solutions and ignore solutions 
> that provide 
> > a better fit.
> 
> It's hard to avoid special pleading (since the transition 
> solution with my name on it is in the list), but I do think 
> that there is a strong argument for concentrating on LCD 
> solutions for the first wave.

If you look at the sequence of work done in ngtrans you will see that it
started with a strong focus on LCD approaches, but moved on to address
the reality that one size does not fit all. Debates about what is useful
or necessary will be useless until we complete the environment
description documents. Once we get a set of problem statements in front
of the whole group it will be easier to see from the diverse
requirements that there is no LCD. It is a nice fantasy to believe that
a core-out approach will be simple and easy, but when the deployment
hits CPE that can't be replaced or upgraded (or in the case of cable
modems there is not even a plan for upgrading the fundemental docsis
standard to consider IPv6), whats next? 

The charter of the new WG will need to evolve once the current set of
documents are written, as they will form the real problem statement. In
their absence, the charter is limited to the viewpoint of core network
providers and the operational challenges in getting that environment
running. 

> 
> We might contemplate a separate IETF activity for advanced 
> transition solutions.

That is unlikely since the group that would look at those is being shut
down. 

Tony