Re: REVIEW NEEDED: draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-00.txt (UNCLASSI FIED) (UNCLASSIFIED)

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

I see no reason why the scenario should not be included in ent-analysis,
after all it is Scenario 3 of the ent-scenarios document.

See page 7 of:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-05.txt

Thus my view is it must be in this analysis.

Tim

On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 02:28:36PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Fully understand in terms of solutions. I meant "separable" for
> the purposes of analysis.
> 
>    Brian
> 
> Klynsma, Steven L Mr CIO/G6/MITRE wrote:
> >Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED 
> >Caveats: NONE
> >
> >Brian,
> >
> >I'm sure you're aware that the military has much to gain by taking on a 
> >"commercial" flavor.  By that I mean reducing our dependence on 
> >government-developed equipment and using the stuff already available in 
> >commercial sector.  Therefore, we take great pains to use commercial 
> >terminology (as opposed to military) and would hope that a separate 
> >solution for our environment can be avoided.
> >
> >Steve 
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc@zurich.ibm.com] 
> >Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 9:02 AM
> >To: Klynsma, Steven L Mr CIO/G6/MITRE
> >Cc: 'Bound, Jim'; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> >Subject: Re: REVIEW NEEDED: draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-00.txt (UNCLASSI 
> >FIED)
> >
> >Steve,
> >
> >Yes, I am fully aware of Network Centric Operations requirements.
> >Somehow I don't think of the DoD as an "enterprise" and my comments are 
> >all in the context of my understanding of enterprises.
> >Obviously, a solution is needed in the scenario you describe, but I'd like 
> >to think of it as separable.
> >
> >    Brian
> >
> >
> >Klynsma, Steven L Mr CIO/G6/MITRE wrote:
> >
> >>Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED
> >>Caveats: NONE
> >>
> >>Brian,
> >>
> >>I work for the military and would dearly love to go to a dual-stack 
> >>everywhere, but as Jim mentioned, that's simply not feasible.  Unlike 
> >>commercial users, we typically must develop our own unique comms networks 
> >>that support unique military requirements (i.e. extremely constrained 
> >>bandwidth (we feel lucky to have 16KBPS "pipes"), unpredictable, but 
> >>inevitable and often lengthy, disconnects from network services, and a 
> >>need for both host and routing infrastructure to be mobile).  In such an 
> >>environment, operating two routing protocols, as you must with dual-stack 
> >>becomes quite problematic.  In addition, because of the lengthy life 
> >>cycles of weapon systems (15-20 years), you find yourself working with 
> >>processors that are overloaded already.  Throw a dual-stack requirement 
> >>on this tactical environment and you break the camels back.  
> >>So we are typically looking at replacing the entire tactical comms 
> >>infrastructure.  Given the other constraints on bandwidth, mobility, 
> >>etc., it becomes very attractive to make the leap from IPv4 directly to 
> >>IPv6 without a lengthy dual-stack transition period.  However, that 
> >>essentially creates an IPv6-only ISP supporting our weapon systems on the 
> >>battlefield.  Of course, this, in turn, comes with another set of 
> >>problems, primarily for interoperablity with IPv4-based current systems 
> >>and allies, but we hope by aggressively migrating the force to 
> >>IPv6-dominance that these additional problems become manageable.
> >>
> >>Vr,
> >>
> >>Steve
> >
> >
> >
> ><snip>
> >Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED 
> >Caveats: NONE
> >
> >

-- 
Tim

North American IPv6 Task Force Technologist Seminar
More info at http://www.ipv6seminar.com/