RE: Comments: draft-savola-v6ops-transarch-01.txt

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

Hi,

Thanks for comments.  Sorry for the delay in responding; I'll revise the 
doc based on this (and a couple of other documents) to -03 after the 
meeting.

(Btw, a different quoting style might be easier to follow-up.. :-)

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 m.mackay@lancaster.ac.uk wrote:
>>    However, the big picture of the transition seems not to have been 
>>    discussed sufficiently.  Therefore, different people have different
>>    assumptions on the process, which makes planning the transition 
>>    architecture very difficult: indeed, it seems that there is a lack of 
>>    architecture in the transition process.
> 
> might it be useful to discuss these assumptions before moving on to 
> the architecture...

I think this has improved; a new section has been added before 2.1 already 
in -02 version.

> How about introducing the idea of service provisioning here,
> not sure if it would count as a general principle
>   Services to be deployed
>   Behaviour/performance expected

Hmm.. could you elaborate a bit more?  did you have specific ideas in mind 
how to integrate it to the rest of the document?  That is, what level of 
services you're referring to?  The expected performance etc. in realistic 
terms might also be difficult to estimate..

> Might be good to include some more discussion of the 'starting point' of 
> the transitioning, e.g.  IPv4 w/wo NAT, dual stack (various flavours) or 
> new (IPv6 only?)

Could you elaborate a bit (please check -02 version btw, this has improved 
as well!)?  There *maybe* could be some brief description without starting 
scenarios, like v4 w/ NAT or v4 w/o NAT, but otherwise I think it has been 
covered..

> Definitely, I think the idea of discussing responsibility for the 
> provisioning of transitioning is important...

Yep.. I'm not sure how to proceed from there, though.  If you have 
thoughts how to make these issues more concrete (not just questions here 
and there, and discussed a bit here and there) I'm all ears :-)

> I think this is a good draft and something that should be discussed here
> sooner rather than later, however it?s perhaps a bit too general at this
> stage and doesn't actually specify an architecture as much as put
> forward some useful guidelines.

I'm trying to avoid preaching "gospel", giving folks thoughts is more 
important :-)
 
> It would be great to get more discussion of the 'assumptions' at the
> start of the document highlighting the main points of
> contention/discussion to help provide some clarification.

Yep, already there a bit .. see if you agree if it's sufficient or not?
 
> Another point is that while now it is probably best to deploy dual stack
> with limited IPv6, it might be an idea to outline how this is likely to
> change in the future.

True..

Thanks,

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