Re: Oops! Accepting Enterprise Scenarios as WG Item

["Fred L. Templin" <ftemplin@IPRG.nokia.com>]

Alain,

Sorry I'm just getting to this now, but I don't agree with your
point that the "...design team is way too 'transition tool' centric
in its approach...". In section 4, we see the following paragraph:

 "This document will identify those Points of Transition and discuss
  them within a set of scenarios. This document will not provide
  solutions. A set of suggested solutions will be provided in a follow
  on document to this work."

To me, this paragraph seems to be setting the appropriate scope for
the document and is not at all 'transition tool' centric. Am I missing
your point? In any event, I do think the current document takes the
right approach (albeit a bit light on text in some sections) and I
support it becoming a wg item.

Fred Templin
ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com

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.