Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-00.txt

[Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@Sun.COM>]

I have a comment on draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-00.txt.

Scenario case A:

A) Gateway does not provide IPv6

By reading just this document, it sounds perfectly ok.
However, after reading the companion document,
draft-huitema-v6ops-unmaneval-00.txt, section 2.1.3:

  The tunnel approach is more expensive to provide, because the tunnel
  server will have to carry a much larger amount of traffic. It is
  unclear that a tunnel service can be provided as an almost free
  "supporting infrastructure", except perhaps if the service was
  directly provided by the same ISP that already provides IPv4
  connectivity to the unmanaged network.

I came to the conclusion that this scenario A is actually
combining 2 sub-scenarios:
A1- Gateway does not provide IPv6,
       ISP is cooperating to offer some level of v6 service
A2- Gateway does not provide IPv6,
       ISP is not cooperating

IMHO, the scenario document should reflect this.

This leads me to a larger issue, why should we rush publishing those
scenario documents as info RFC? The above is a clear example that
the scenarios may need to be revisited at the light of the analysis.

   - Alain.