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

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

Of course we will reword/add clarity per the input to make clear network
c scenario.  Also realize users are seeing the benefit for cost reasons
to move to IPv6 native networks sooner rather than later and this is
affecting transition planning in process now. But your bias is clear in
all discussion.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bound, Jim
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 10:46 AM
> To: Pekka Savola; rfgraveman@nac.net
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-02.txt
> 
> This will never be added to this document your out of control 
> but thanks for your opinion.  You continue to miss the point 
> of Native IPv6 deployment.  And realize as you say your are 
> ONE person here not a GATE to our hard work and efforts to 
> work on specifications.  To even say that this scenarios is 
> unfit in a mail on this honoroable list of highly techncial 
> and well informed, long time, engieers, architects and many 
> of us who have been implementing, shipping, and deploying 
> Ipv6 for many years and you the IETF spec reviewer to say 
> that a scenario is unfit when you have nothing more in 
> bullets clearly demonstrates your bias and continued denial 
> of a deployment model that is not just for defense networks 
> but Telcos, Enterprises you don't know anytbing about is 
> beyond my comprehension.  I am so tired of your biased input 
> I am uclear if I can even work with you anymore as one of the 
> true leaders and workers of
> IPv6 that does more than sit around and pontificate on specifications.
> It is unfortunate that you are a co-chair of the working 
> group with such a bias.  
> 
> /jim 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> > [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pekka Savola
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 2:29 AM
> > To: rfgraveman@nac.net
> > Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-02.txt
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>