RE: ocean: do not boil

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

Margaret,

You keep saying trim down the scenarios.  That could be the last thing we want.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:mrw@windriver.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 6:13 PM
> To: alh-ietf@tndh.net
> Cc: 'Randy Bush'; 'Bob Fink'; 'Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino';
> v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: ocean: do not boil
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Tony,
> 
> >The most obvious case at the moment is the substantial deployment of
> >IPv4-only NAT CPE that for financial reasons *will not be upgraded*
> >until the ISP is ready to provide native IPv6 support (in 
> North America
> >that is looking like ~2006, or in the case of docsis devices much
> >later). For those end sites that want to move sooner, and 
> don't have a
> >reasonable option for an alternate ISP, just saying we only 
> support dual
> >stack is telling them they can't use IPv6 capable apps & 
> appliances for
> >at least 5 years.
> 
> I'm not sure how this follows from Randy's comments...
> 
> If a node in the end site wants to access an IPv6-only 
> service, the user
> would need to install IPv6 on that node (or buy a new appliance with
> IPv6 included, etc.).  If the IPv6 infrastructure isn't 
> present to route
> IPv6 natively, then they might use one of our several 
> tunneling mechanisms
> to tunnel the packet over the IPv4 infrastructure to an IPv6 network.
> 
> >Also, as a meta point, declaring an approach for transition 
> out of scope
> >before the scenario documents are done is just a bit short sighted.
> 
> I actually think that we were discussing some prioritization of the
> scenarios, not declaring any of the solutions in or out of scope.
> 
> Once we have a full set of scenarios, I think it will make sense to
> try to trim down the set of scenarios, based on what we think is most
> likely to occur.
> 
> Margaret
> 
> 
> 
>