RE: Dominant IPv6 Network deployment for Transition by Users

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

> 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?

That is not the issue at all.  The user does not want IPv4 on the
network at all.  But they require it at times when Legacy IPv4 is
required.

> 
> 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.

In addition in the use case for DSTM its also a result of deploying
dominant IPv6 network and wanting to reduce any use of IPv4 as soon as
possible.

>  
> > 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) 

This is not about a majority ok.  Its about a use case.  If one customer
will spend 1 billion dollars on something it is as significant or more
so than 20 that only spend 200 million.  So I reject the cocept of
majority in this particular discussion.

> actually want to control the operation of transition to 
> IPv6-only at this point?

Yes and that is the case.

>  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

Wrong assumption in your process above.  Many users deploy IP on their
own private Internet only using the public Internet for web services
that exist etc.  

Assuming IPv6 deployment within the Enterprise is dependent on the
public Internet supporting IPv6 is an invalid and wrong assumption for
many enterprises.

>, an easy 
> strategy could be to postpone the decision on when to move to 
> IPv6-only. 

I think that is an invalid discussion here in the IPv6 WG and in the
IETF.  We do not control or own what users do and when they do it at
all.  Please re-read Christian Huitema's response on this that we really
have no business being involved with the business decisions of any
entity and telling them postpone your transition strategy is absurd and
the users/market will never listen to us with such input.  Please lets
not even go there.  

> 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.

I am assuming nothing.  I am hearing users and deployment requirements
for dominant IPv6 networks to be deployed.

Again Ipv6 does not have to be globally deployed for Enterprises to use
IPv6 dominant networks (e.g. NTT, KDDI, GM, Military Organizations
worldwide, Security Forces World Wide) they all have their own
Internets.

> 
> 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!),

This is exactly what users are telling me and others and that they want
IPv6 for its operational benefits it has nothing to do with religion or
politics.  I do not think your mail above is relevant to the technical
or deployment operational discussion.

> 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.

In some cases it is in fact easier to deploy IPv6 but that is not our
issue here at all.

>  
> > 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.

You can question it but the users I know really don't care what you
think personally but do care we discuss this in the working group.  They
have a strategy and will deploy dominant IPv6 and that is not open for
discussion it is a business decision.  What we have to do here or we can
go do it elsewhere is determine how we support that and DSTM is one
mechanism that will support that form of deployment.

>  
> > 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 think it gets into the entire discussion of talking about any
scenarios.  We have many on this list that believe we need to discuss
transition mechanisms.  Except for you, Thomas, and Margaret no one else
agrees with you three this is not important or that dominant Ipv6
networks are important.  So I think for now the discussion is required
and we see where the WG goes.

> 
> 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.

Well I and others on this list do not agree with you and from the names
that support working on DSTM I know we all have far more technical and
deployment experience to justify this conversation and opposition to
your opinion.  

And by the way Tony Hain was right and correct in his mail.

I will be watching this process carefully and so are some of the users I
speak of on this list.  Your treading on thin ice here the IETF is not a
monarchy or dictatorship and your just one person even as Chair or
Margaret as IESG.  So be careful is my input and permit the open process
to continue as Chair or you can publicly give us all permission to go
elsewhere and compete directly with the IETF and I don't want to see
that happen.  But appreciate the individual input and views you provide
and they are not new and either are mine and lets hear from the working
group.  That is what an open standards process is all about here.

Regards,
/jim

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