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

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

Hi Pekka,

I think all four cases should be considered.

Whether you consider b) and c) depends on whether you think an IPv6-only 
nodes will be deployed or IPv6-only network infrastructure might be deployed.
I think both are happening in some networks now.  Not many, but it is
happening and that volume will only grow, so we should cater for it.

I agree a) and d) are mainstream, and perhaps the wording can reflect that,
but we should consider all four possibilities in ent-scenarios.

Tim

On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 08:43:17AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 2004, Jonne Soininen wrote:
> > these are scenarios and the scenarios should describe the possible
> > scenarios that do make technically sense and hence, are possible to
> > be deployed. I do not see why not all of the scenarios would not
> > make sense.
> 
> Enumerating the possibilities is of course fine.
> 
> I was mainly objecting to Tim's wording:
> 
>   If section 4 were removed a requirement subsection would be needed in
>   section 5 to state that legacy interworking **is required** for four
>   main modes:
> 
> (emphasis mine)
> 
> s/is required/needs to be considered/ (for example) and it would be
> fine by me..
> 
> > On Mon, 2004-05-24 at 15:29, ext Pekka Savola wrote:
> > > On Wed, 12 May 2004, Tim Chown wrote:
> > > > I believe this is ready.
> > > > 
> > > > Alain's point is valid, but I don't believe changes would impact the
> > > > usefulness of the draft as is.   If section 4 were removed a requirement
> > > > subsection would be needed in section 5 to state that legacy interworking 
> > > > is required for four main modes: 
> > > > 
> > > > a) dual-stack <-> v4 or v6 only
> > > > b) v4 only <-> v6 only
> > > > c) v4 <-> v4 over v6 infrastructure
> > > > d) v6 <-> v6 over v4 infrastructure
> > > 
> > > Isn't this a list of all the possible combinations?
> > > 
> > > The point here is, do we need to care for all of these combinations?  
> > > For example, in the unmanaged networks, b) was considered out of
> > > scope, and that's also recommended against in the 3GPP.  c) is also
> > > something that I'm not sure there is yet consensus whether this is a
> > > reasonable approach at this point.
> > > 
> > > One goal of the scenarios/analysis work is to try to identify the
> > > actual, critical, mainstream scenarios which call of certain kind of
> > > interworking or mechanisms.  I think at least a) or d) fulfill these
> > > criteria, but b) and c) might be so-and-so, depending on how you
> > > phrase it and which kind of techniques one might have in mind
> > > applying..
> > > 
> > > > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 06:20:11PM +0300, Jonne Soininen wrote:
> > > > > Hi everybody,
> > > > > 
> > > > > this is a WG Last Call for comments on sending 
> > > > > draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-02.txt, "IPv6 Enterprise Network
> > > > > Scenarios" to the IESG for consideration as Informational:
> > > > > 
> > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-02.txt
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please review these documents, and send your feedback to the
> > > > > list.  Please also indicate whether or not you believe that this
> > > > > document is ready to go to the IESG.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The last call will end in two weeks, on May 26th.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Pekka & Jonne
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings