Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-02.txt

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Mon, 24 May 2004 rfgraveman@nac.net wrote:
> > I think Example network C, a security defense network, is not
> > mainstream enough to be applicable to be investigated in the
> > scenarios.  There are probably 1, 5 or 10 such networks in the world.
> > We should be focusing on more common scenarios (even addressing
> > "80/20" would be good).  [I have a few specific comments for
> > clarification within this example, but I'll send them if this example
> > is not replaced by something else.]
> > ...
> 
> OTOH, some of these networks are large, and they buy a lot of equipment,
> so some major vendors take their requirements quite seriously. Therefore,
> I would be against dropping this case. We can discuss further whether this
> is exactly the right characterization, however.

I can see the argument why this needs to be considered .. money is a
language everybody understands .. but I'm concerned that this would be
painted as a "model" for v6 deployment, i.e., that other enterprises
which have very little in common with such defense networks would
start mimicking their deployment strategies just because those are the
ones described in our documents.  This is why I'm worried about 
keeping this here.

But let's hear if there are more opinions about this.

In any case, if it stays, this could probably be clarified a bit, 
like:

   A Security Defense Network Operation:
                                                                                  
==> add here something like:

    Note that these kind of networks are uncommon and unfit to be a
    model or example for deployment for enterprises in general.  
    However, due to their importance to the vendor community, their
    requirements should be considered explicitly.

...

     - External network required at secure specific points.
 
==> I had hard time parsing this, "at secure"?  Did you mean:

     - External network is required, but only at specific, secure, 
       exit points.
 
...

     - Network must be able to absorb ad-hoc creation of sub-Networks.
 
==> I didn't quite understand what this meant, please clarify.  (I've 
a hunch, but..)

     - Entire parts of the Network are completely mobile.
 
==> are we talking about a mobile network (NEMO sense), or nomadic 
network (network de-attaches, moves, network re-attaches) ?  The 
latter would at least be feasible, while the former may be a bit more 
problematic.  Maybe worth clarifying a bit..

     - Network must be able to bolt on to the Internet to share
       bandwidth as required from Providers.

==> "bolt on to the Internet" ?  I wasn't sure what this was trying to 
say -- that the network must be able to multihome for load-sharing 
purposes, or...?

     - Nodes must be able to access IPv4 legacy applications over IPv6
       network.

==> are these internal legacy apps, external ones, or possibly both?  
Isn't this assumptive about IPv6 deployment ("v6-only") and unfit for
requirements?

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