RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-03.txt

[Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>]

Hi Jim,

At 1:38 AM -0400 7/2/04, Bound, Jim wrote:
>  So I want to clarify Margaret's
> statement that it is not resistance and IPv6 is mandated and will
> happen, but that more testing is required.  That testing is going on now
> and one example is Moonv6 (there are others) www.mooonv6.org

Good clarification.

"Resistance" was a poor word choice, "caution" might have been better,
and I agree that caution is appropriate.

My thinking is that the v6ops group should be informed by early
operational experience with IPv6-only networks (like Moonv6) and that
during the analysis phase for the secure/defense networks scenario
we should consider if any IETF protocol or BCP-type work is needed to
resolve technical/protocol issues found  in that testing (if any).

The biggest issue with secure IPv6 deployment (as I understand it) is
not a lack of appropriate standards, but a lack of available, supported,
commercial products for information assurance that include good IPv6
integration (things like firewalls and intrusion detection systems).  So,
some of the issues may not be addressable by the IETF at all.  Have
things been getting better in this area?

Margaret