RE: Note on Scenarios for IPv6

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

Hi,

On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> >What I was referencing (not picking on Pekka) was Pekka's mail to our
> >Ent draft and short discussion Pekka had with Bob Fink regarding
> >defining the IPv4 Enterprise in scenarios not IPv6.
> 
> I'll go back and check, but I think that the only scope
> issue we've been discussing with a v6ops scenario draft
> is the ISP draft, not the Enterprise draft.

My concern here was where do you draw the line.
 
> The ISP draft includes some execellent work that describes
> current IPv4 installations, but it doesn't (yet) explain
> how/when/where/if IPv6 will be introduced, so it doesn't
> set up scenarios that can be used to analyze the applicability
> of coexistence mechanisms.

My first though on scenarios documents were: "OK.  First we must
understand the problem (IPv4 networks, typically) to be able to work on
IPv6".  This has been done rather well in the ISP doc.

It doesn't discuss IPv6 all that much, but I'm a bit unsure what kind of
scenarios it could actually use without going into _solutions_ (one could
argue that even basic principles like dual-stack or tunneling are
solutions but I guess the consensus is that such are OK to discuss them
under scenarios) -- this makes some assumptions about how v6 is enabled.

One could argue that describing "how/when/where/if IPv6 is introducted" is
part of the solutions space.
 
> I believe that the ISP team is aware of the need to expand
> the scope of their draft, and that they are working on it.
> 
> So, unless I've missed something important (if I have, Pekka,
> please tell me), there is no disagreement about the scope
> of the Enterprise draft.

Enterprise has a more integrated approach to how basic IPv6 transition
mechanisms are taken into consideration in the text than ISP, yes -- but
the general questions still arise:

What should the _scenario_ documents include? (And what not.)
What should the _solutions_ documents include? (And what not.)

This seems to be a critical thing to have a common understanding on.  To
me, at least, this seems a quite uncertain.  If we don't know what we
should be doing, it's no wonder we haven't been able to make as much
progress as we might have hoped :-).

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings