RE: WGLC ent-analysis-03: application vs network driven

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

Let us discuss this ok it is valid input.  But yes from our view the
enterprise will select how the network will be deployed but from two
vantage points.  One because they want to begin the infrastructure
deployment and IPv6 readiness, and two to support key applications they
want to operate over IPv6.  

thanks
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pekka Savola
> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 3:49 PM
> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: WGLC ent-analysis-03: application vs network driven
> 
> (I'll put two most separable & possibly most discussable 
> items in separate 
> mails.)
> 
> ==> the document seems to have been written based on the assumption 
> that first the enterprise decides which kind of network it will run 
> (dual-IP, v6-only) and whether its applications will be v6-only, 
> dual-IP or v4, and then takes a look at the surrounding 
> environment -- 
> and the result is often "oops.. we need translation, tunneling, and a 
> number of other complexities for our decision to be fulfilled".
> 
> In some cases, this approach may be appropriate (though I 
> hope this is 
> not commonplace).  In most cases, the better way is to look at what 
> kind of applications you have or want to have (also the ones 
> which you 
> need to communicate with outside the enterprise) and after that make 
> the decisions (weighing the different tradeoffs of course) which kind 
> of network topologies would be best suited for the job.
> 
> After this deliberation, the result might be that an enterprise might 
> have to take a "hard road" in any case, resulting the matrix we're 
> describing, but the thought process is different.
> 
> Maybe or maybe not this has also been implicit when writing this 
> document, but this thought process just hasn't been spelled out.  It 
> should be, in a number of places.  I think a key message that 
> needs to 
> be delivered is, "if a particular scenario is difficult, maybe it is 
> worth considering alternative assumptions?" [for example, having the 
> application be dual-IP or network dual-stack] or in other words, 
> "don't push if there's resistance".
> 
> This issue should probably be discussed in section 3, maybe reminded 
> briefly in section 6, and again mentioned in appropriate places in 
> section 8.
> 
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> 
>