Re: Note on Scenarios for IPv6

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Sure. "A bank". "A large IT company"....

   Brian

"Bound, Jim" wrote:
> 
> Brian,
> 
> Assume the customers can remain anonymous?
> 
> Thanks
> /jim
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian@hursley.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 5:34 AM
> > To: Bound, Jim
> > Cc: Margaret Wasserman; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Note on Scenarios for IPv6
> >
> >
> > I made the comment a few weeks ago that the enterprise
> > document should include some customer-scenario use cases, to
> > validate the technical scenarios as being relevant - and Jim
> > acknowledged this as a useful thing to add. But I don't think
> > that means there is a basic scope problem with the document.
> >
> >    Brian
> >
> > "Bound, Jim" wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Margaret,
> > >
> > > I won't inline comment (not because I am lazy) because I am in tune
> > > with your mail and agree.  I am fully on board with the
> > v6ops charter
> > > to see if it works.  I stated my input on that but can move
> > on if that
> > > is what the team wants to do, except for very rare cases (e.g.
> > > Stateful being a SHOULD in node reqs and will fight the to the IESG
> > > most likely).
> > >
> > > 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.
> > Granted it was a
> > > short mail exchange, and I could be reading to much into
> > it.  But, I
> > > have seen this type of mail in our culture cause raging debate over
> > > the assumptions and goals, and we end up back at the
> > starting gate. So
> > > given many years here I am a bit nervous on the amount of
> > energy I put
> > > into it.
> > >
> > > But I thought we were ok till today too.  Just checking.  I also
> > > believe doing the scearios will make steps move very
> > quickly for TTM
> > > for our specs and output from this WG.  At least in theory.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > /jim
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:mrw@windriver.com]
> > > >Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 8:48 PM
> > > >To: Bound, Jim
> > > >Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> > > >Subject: Re: Note on Scenarios for IPv6
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Hi Jim,
> > > >
> > > >>Picking on our Ent work as example.  We have had pretty much the
> > > >>same intro and scope we believed was important since the v6ops
> > > >interim meeting
> > > >>and in Yokohamma.  Today we now learn there is a scope issue.
> > > > Yokohamma
> > > >>was 9 months or so ago.  We need to fix this folks.  It is
> > > >not all the
> > > >>teams fault or the working group.  Its some kind of process
> > > >we are stuck
> > > >>in.  We need to break it.
> > > >
> > > >Why do you believe that there is a scope issue for this
> > document?  I
> > > >have just read it, again, and I do not believe that there
> > is anything
> > > >wrong with the scope of this document.
> > > >
> > > >Obviously, there are still many incomplete sections that
> > need to be
> > > >completed, and there is some further editing needed, but I believe
> > > >that the scope and structure are fine.
> > > >
> > > >The important thing is that we write a set of documents
> > > >that help us to understand how enterprise networks will
> > move to IPv6,
> > > >where/when/how/if they will need to run both IPv4 and
> > IPv6, and what
> > > >coexistence mechanisms will be needed to make this work.
> > > >
> > > >We broke the task into two pieces, scenarios and analysis,
> > because we
> > > >wanted to understand the problem space before we started
> > working on
> > > >the applicability of each coexistence mechanism to the
> > problem space.
> > > >I think that this document does a good job of defining the problem
> > > >space for our later analysis work.
> > > >
> > > >Margaret
> >