[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Oops! Accepting Enterprise Scenarios as WG Item
Alain,
What we did is select a means to get to as many as we can. See the 27
uses cases. Unmanaged came to similar conclusion. What we all face
doing any scenarios is we cannot discuss every possible one. So what
unmanaged and enterprise are doing is trying to build a best case
scenario algorithm. If we need to fix that algroithm that is prudent. I
think the ISP and 3GPP case has a more focused paradigm to present with
3GPP being the most focused.
As editor for Yanick and team I have added yours and Brian's email to my
"edit" queue for the team. My process as editor is like Dr. Spoc in
Startrek :--)
I am amoral on the outcome as long as it comes from multiple sources.
Your stuff is in the queue now as Brian's. It will be reflected. But
if the algorithm needs tweaking then we have to do that to cover the
varying topologies as best we can.
Right now the team all has writing assignments from Yanick.
Thanks
/jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alain Durand [mailto:Alain.Durand@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:26 PM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: Bound, Jim; Margaret Wasserman; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Oops! Accepting Enterprise Scenarios as WG Item
>
>
> Jim,
>
> What Brian just described are some of the typical network
> topologies I would like to see described and discussed.
>
> - Alain.
>
> On Friday, February 21, 2003, at 07:57 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> > Jim, I think you're misinterpreting my use of the b-word.
> I'm not (of
> > course) talking about business models. I'm talking about scenarios.
> > For example:
> >
> > A bank running a massive ATM network with some number of
> gazillions
> > of transactions per second against central databases.
> >
> > An engineering company running distributed design systems
> > across 20 different sites around the world.
> >
> > A pharmaceutical company running both compute-intensive and ERP
> > applications.
> >
> > etc. Each one fleshed out with how they do things today,
> and what they
> > want to achieve by adding IPv6.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > "Bound, Jim" wrote:
> >>
> >> Brian,
> >>
> >>> I share some of Alain's concerns. I think that enterprise
> customers
> >>> will not look at IPv6 as a goal in itself, but as a tool
> for certain
> >>> business scenarios they need to support.
> >>
> >> We discussed this on the team. I agree with business
> justification.
> >>
> >>> So
> >>> I think the draft should start with a set of business
> scenarios, and
> >>> then maybe continue with the technology scenarios (plus
> analysis of
> >>> which business scenarios they support). At the end, it
> would then be
> >>> possible to deduce which technology scenarios are useful.
> >>
> >> We discussed this and this is not an IETF mission or purpose. The
> >> business scenarios are not common and will vary. If we pick X
> >> business scenarios and leave out Y then the Y types will not be
> >> happy. This is not a goal of any scenario document
> unmanaged, ISP,
> >> or 3gpp. So I would
> >> suggest that this is not on any of the design teams plates. If your
> >> correct and I do not believe you are to add this then none of the
> >> current scenarios should be moved to the IESG.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> However, I wouldn't advocate pulling back the draft. I think we
> >>> should just ask the team to go back and develop the business
> >>> scenarios (or use cases, if you prefer the term). And if
> necessary,
> >>> pull in more expertise for this (e.g. to cover Big Iron and major
> >>> data centers and hosting centers).
> >>
> >> We have that expertise for "operations" and will not focus on data
> >> center or big iron. Reason is that one persons belief of
> data center
> >> or big iron is not the same as anothers. In the follow on draft
> >> analysis of
> >> the enterprise which will be technical will have assumptions that a
> >> "data center" could use.
> >>
> >> That being said I would suggest the IPv6 Forum, Asian IPv6 Task
> >> Force, North American IPv6 Task Force have the business
> scenarios and
> >> cases done. It is also those forum charter not the IETF.
> >>
> >> Also would suggest if we want to focus on the data center
> >> specifically we should build a separate draft and set of work to
> >> discuss first what it means and then execute on those
> assumptions it
> >> should not be part of the enterprise work.
> >>
> >> This team and work should be the dumping ground for all
> the things we
> >> have to do that are not covered in the other specs. Or
> else we will
> >> be here for 5 years working on this and this team is not
> going to do
> >> that.
> >> Like DNS is the dumping ground for anything we cannot
> figure out in
> >> our
> >> community to store data I would suggest and that is wrong too.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> /jim
> >>>
> >>> Brian
> >>>
> >>> Alain Durand wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Margaret,
> >>>>
> >>>> First, I would like to say that I appreciate the effort of
> >>> the design
> >>>> team to address such a difficult issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, that said, I'm not very comfortable with this
> document. On
> >>>> one hand, it is badly needed and already very late, on the
> >>> other hand,
> >>>> I'm not sure it is taking the right direction.
> >>>>
> >>>> I already have commented several times that this design
> team is way
> >>>> too 'transition tool' centric in its approach, somehow
> making the
> >>>> hidden assumption that solving the 'enterprise' case in
> the (yet to
> >>>> come) analysis/solution
> >>>> document will consist only of picking the 'right'
> transition tool
> >>>> developed by NGtrans.
> >>>>
> >>>> What I would like to see are things like the following
> instantiated
> >>>> for a set of 'typical' enterprise environment:
> >>>>
> >>>> - how does the internal networks looks like?
> >>>> - how is the networks are managed?
> >>>> (who is responsible, what is outsourced, is IT
> >>> competent/reliable
> >>>> or not ...)
> >>>> - what are the procedure/tools in place to manage the network?
> >>>> (not only SNMP, but for example tools to create DNS
> zone files)
> >>>> - is the public internet used (via VPN...)?
> >>>> - what are the connections to the Internet?
> >>>> - Is the v4 address space private or public?
> >>>> - Is the v4 address space 'portable'? (hint: do they need
> >>> portable v6
> >>>> address space)
> >>>> - How much v4 address space is available?
> >>>> - Are they multi-homed?
> >>>> - how is security enforced?
> >>>> - how does the datacenter looks like if there is one?
> >>>> - what kind of applications are used in the
> >>>> Internet/intranet/extranets/...)
> >>>> (is it in-house code? is the source code available?
> is an Ipv6
> >>>> version of the
> >>>> code available to buy?....)
> >>>> - how naming service/directory service is performed (two
> face DNS?)
> >>>> -...
> >>>>
> >>>> There is a little of that buried in section 4, variable
> >>> description,
> >>>> but I think this document should really instantiate
> those variables
> >>>> and more (the ones I just described above for example,
> >>> certainly much
> >>>> more)
> >>>> in a set of several 'typical' enterprise environments instead of
> >>>> focusing on cases describing how enterprises are thinking
> >>> of deploying
> >>>> v6 at the IP level
> >>>> (section 5, which is basically which networks to connect)
> >>> or abstract
> >>>> cases of transition mechanisms
> >>>> (section 6, point of transition methods) which belongs
> not in this
> >>>> document but in the solution document.
> >>>>
> >>>> With this in mind, I would not recommend the wg adopting this
> >>>> document.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Alain.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thursday, February 20, 2003, at 08:46 AM, Margaret Wasserman
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi All,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I made a mistake last week and approved the publication of the
> >>>>> enterprise scenarios document as a WG work item without
> actually
> >>>>> checking with the WG first... Sorry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, let's do this the right way...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The enterprise scenarios/analysis team believes that
> >>>>> the current version of their scenarios document is ready for
> >>>>> consideration as a v6ops WG item. The document can be found at:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-entnet-sc
> >> enario
> >>>> s-
> >>>> 00.txt
> >>>>
> >>>> This work is clearly within the charter of v6ops.
> >>>>
> >>>> Could members of the WG please comment on whether you
> believe that
> >>>> this document should be accepted as a WG item? In other words,
> >>>> does
> >>
> >>>> it take the right technical direction, and would it serve as a
> >>>> useful basis for our work? Is it sufficiently complete
> that it is
> >>>> ready for WG review and refinement?
> >>>>
> >>>> If there is sufficient support to accept this document,
> >>>> it will remain a WG work item. If not, we will move it back to
> >>>> individual submission status.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry for my mistake and any confusion it may cause.
> >>>>
> >>>> Margaret
>
>