RE: Note on Scenarios for IPv6

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

As one of our Ent design team members stated Mr. Tony Hain the matrix or
points on a graph for all the variant possibilities of how an enterprise
will approach adoption of IPv6 are to large to document each case.  The
approach we have taken is to select the best case scenarios and methods
to cover the widest possible cases.

I think one thing we realized on the Ent team is that we believe the
phrase IPv6 Adoption applies to the initial scenarios rather than IPv6
Transition.  First the Enterprise will believe it is important to Adopt
IPv6.  Then the Enterprise will look at all the possibilities to reach
that Adoption and develop their plan.

The key here is the Enterprise will NOT just do what we say in specs for
Adoption or Transition.  They look for us to provide them INPUT not the
PLAN.  This is a key assumption by us on the Ent team and have discussed
it in depth.

Out of curiosity does anyone in v6ops not agree with this?  It is an
assumption about our role in the industry at large too.

Another point I want to make that is important for folks to understand.
Large Enterprises like Fortune 100 companies, Government, Military, etc.
all hire very knowledgable computer scientists and folks just like on
this list who are experts like us with as much senority as many of us in
the industry.  They have architects, engineers, operational expertise,
etc.  I tend to think vendors and standards bodies often don't get this
point. 

We also can never develop a one-size-fits all set of specs or
architecture for IPv6 operations, but only add to the tools the users
can use to build IPv6 networks.

Understanding what I say above (not that all agree) is important to
realize about our assumptions as a team working together and how/why one
of us may view our work and efforts differently.

I personally believe from reading mail on this list and hearing views
that a part of our team here do not get that the users are far more
educated, have deployed far more IPv6 than we realize in their labs, and
have far more experience with IPv6 operationally, architecturally, and
theoretically than we realize.

Also realize vendor have been pitching IPv6 to customers for 3 years
now, the users may actually know more about what products exist, next
product plans by vendors than this list too.

Regards,
/jim

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 7:43 AM
> To: Margaret Wasserman
> Cc: Bound, Jim; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Note on Scenarios for IPv6
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>