Re: Dominant IPv6 Network deployment for Transition by Users

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Bound, Jim wrote:
> 1. Moving to dominant IPv6 networks reduces cost over long transition of
> supporting both IPv4 and IPv6.

I think you assume that having to support one dominant protocol (IPv6)  
and one less dominant (but still a MUST work protocol, IPv4), through
mechanisms more complex than just deploying IPv4 (or keeping it
deployed) requires a smaller amount of support in total?

This seems dubious to me.
 
> 2. Many believe the only real way to deliver true Mobile IP "Roaming"
> across an Internet network is with IPv6 and Mobile IPv6.  

Sure, why not.  This is no argument for dominant IPv6 networks though.  
It's an argument for deploying IPv6.
 
> 3. It is far easier to control the operation of transition to IPv6 once
> IPv6 networks are dominant and IPv4 is treated as legacy.

Do we (and the customers, or at least the majority of them) actually
want to control the operation of transition to IPv6-only at this
point?  I imagine most would want to deploy IPv6 because it brings
them a benefit they want.  Until a significant portion of the Internet
has adopted IPv6, an easy strategy could be to postpone the decision
on when to move to IPv6-only.  You're assuming that it's useful to
make the decision at this point, as a "future investment" and a hope
that IPv6 will actually be globally deployed soon enough to warrant
doing it now.

This might not hold.  At least in many circles, where IPv6 is *NOT* a
"religious" or political topic (but operational one, as it should be,
in the end -- we're not deploying IPv6 for its own sake, but to make
the users happier by giving them better means to achieve X, Y and Z!),
it's much easier to control the operation of transition by deploying
IPv6, but not by taking away what's already in there (IPv4).  Then
IPv6 will fly when there is use (X, Y, or Z, above) for it.
 
> The technology questions to discuss to support the above are as follows:
> 
> 1.  What are the differentials regarding technology requirements for a
> gradual IPv4-IPv6 versus agressive IPv6 transition for deployment to use
> a dominant IPv6 network deployment strategy?

Good question, even though I'd personally want to question the latter 
strategy in the first place.
 
> 2.  What are the Internet infrastructure requirements for that which we
> have dominion over within the IETF regarding "protocols" and
> "operational procedures" we specify to suppport a dominant IPv6 network
> deployment strategy?

Regarding the previous question, I'd be interested in hearing more
opinions on whether this is a priority work item for us?

I.e., I'm sure that (provided that IPv6 will kick off in a major way)  
some years in the future the IETF will be specifying how to deal with
a lot of issues regarding IPv6-only or dominant IPv6, but doing so
*NOW* seems premature (especially as we have as little real
operational experience from that), when we could be using that energy
to solve the problems with the more generic approach, dual-stack.

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