RE: REVIEW NEEDED: draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-00.txt

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

Pekka, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 12:57 PM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: Bound, Jim; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: REVIEW NEEDED: draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-00.txt
> 
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > >>In the terminology of the document that case is
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>  ======================================================
> > >>    |Application |Host 1 |Service |Host 2 |Application |
> > >>    |----------- |Network|Provider|Network|----------  |
> > >>    | Host 1 OS  |       |        |       | Host 2 OS  |
> > >>  =====================================+================
> > >>    |Dual or IPv4|       |        |Dual IP|Dual    IPv4|
> > >>  0 |    ----    |Dual IP|Dual IP |  or   |---- or ----|
> > >>    |    Dual    |       |        |v4 only|Dual    IPv4|
> > >>  ======================================================
> > >>
> > >>In other words, why would an enterprise choose to paint 
> itself into 
> > >>any of the awkward corners of the other 13 scenarios?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Sorry I cannot respond to such a general statement ok.  
> > 
> > Let me rephrase my concern. Somebody reading this draft without the 
> > background knowledge of this WG will simply not realise that the 
> > fundamental coexistence model is dual stack. They will find 
> themselves 
> > right in the discussion of the 13 scenarios and think that 
> they must 
> > pick one of them - but the first question anyone should ask 
> is "can I 
> > just do a straightforward dual stack model?" I would argue that for 
> > the large majority of enterprise customers the answer will be yes, 
> > except for the corner cases where they will have to do something 
> > special. So I think the draft needs to start out by saying this - 
> > either by inserting my Scenario 0 or by saying it in words.
> > 
> > I don't have this problem with 
> draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-05.txt,
> > which starts out with base scenario 1, widespread dual stack.
> 
> I have the same concern as Brian.

Responded to Brian on that one.

> 
> The authors note in the draft that there are a lot of 
> combinations, (like close to a hundred, I recall from IETF60) 
> and listing them all the matrix doesn't make sense.  That's 
> OK.  What I was writing in my review comment is that because 
> the matrix shows a number [less than all] of entries, it 
> should be sufficiently clearly explained what those rest are, 
> and properly bring forward those ones that clearly make sense 
> even if that requires only relatively small amount of text.

We will not discuss what is not there only what is there if the WG sees
cells we missed please tell us. 

> 
> For example, one approach I could see might be having two matrices:  
> one for the "really common and simple" cases (which a lot of 
> enterprises would probably look for), and "more complex" 
> cases which require need to be analyzed in more depth, and 
> solutions provided for.

There are solutions for all combinations except true v6 only and v4
only.  Suggest you see next draft and it will be more clear.  

> 
> That might be one way to clearly show that there are both 
> very simple approaches and and more complex/advanced 
> approaches, without having to list every possible combination 
> out there.  There might be other ways to do that as well.

Also what is simple to one is complex to the other we clearly need to
make it clear.  And will do our best as quick as possible.

Thanks
/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
> 
>