Re: I-D ACTION:draft-baker-v6ops-end2end-00.txt

["Eric Klein" <ericlklein@softhome.net>]

 Fred Baker  wrote:
>
>
> > A few comments (mostly nits).
> >
> > 1. This is the first time I have seen a draft that refers to it's
> > self as a
> > note ( in the  abstract and introduction), this seems like the
> > wrong word.
>
> Without taking the time to do a full investigation, I note that RFC
> #10 opens with the phrase "This note is a revision of NWG/RFC #3", 8
> RFCs (997, 1020, 1062, 1117, 1150, 1244, 1311, and 1543) refer to the
> RFC series as a "series of notes", that 623 RFCs contain the word
> "note" on the first page (but I didn't check all of them to see
> whether it was used as an adjective or as a verb), and that a related
> series was once entitled the Internet Engineering Notes, or IENs.
>
> I dunno, what word would you suggest? Some documents refer to
> themselves as "memos" or "memoranda"... :^)

Ok, I was thinking memo or document.


> > 3. In the last sentence of section 3 it reads:
> >   ' "A satisfactory solution", it could be said, "contains no
> > unnecessary
> > complexity", and "first, does no harm." '
> >
> > This seems a little confusing, as the one with first is second or
> > last. It
> > may be confusing for non-native English speakers.
>
> I had rather hoped that these were obvious fractured quotes relating
> to widely-held principles. I'm not finding it on the web at this
> instant, but one of the various latin statements of Occam's Razor
> that I have run across translates as "a satisfactory proposition
> contains no unnecessary complexity". The Hippocratic Oath is often
> quoted as the source of "First, do no harm"; the words are in fact
> not found there, but might derive from a related work (also by
> Hippocrates) called "Epidemics", or from another work by Galen.
> Galen's words appear to have been "Primum non nocere".
>
> If you would like, I can remove the word "first", or directly quote
> "Epedemics", which says "make a habit of two things—to help, or at
> least to do no harm".
>
> (punching "Occam's razor" and "Hippocratic Oath do no harm" into
> google yields an instructive list of references, for those who are
> interested)
>

I agree with your ideas in principle, I was thinking more along the lines
of:
"A satisfactory solution", "first, does no harm" and "contains no
unnecessary
complexity."


> > 4. In section 3.1, in the third paragraph ("If the central IPv4
> > networks are
> > providing the"), is this referring to the backbone or
> > interconnection points
> > (like the public MAE (east/west) Internet Exchange or any of the
> > hundreds of
> > private ones)? Are there any drafts that talk about converting the
> > backbones
> > or interconnection points to IPv6 using any of the methods used
> > (tunnel
> > broker, etc) or are they all end network based (like Tredeo, etc).
>
<snip>

> I can list a number of networks that have literally taken that
> approach. I can list a number of others that have operational
> concerns, and have chosen instead to run parallel IPv4 and IPv6
> networks internally, and either sell the customer separate IPv4 and
> IPv6 connections or split the traffic into those networks from their
> edge router. Perhaps half a dozen that I know of mention running an
> IPv6-only core and tunneling their IPv4 traffic over it. I obviously
> can't list my customers here, but if a network wants to identify
> itself, this would be a good time to do so... I make the point in 2.1
> that these networks don't bother me: within a single administration,
> they can make it operate correctly for themselves, their customers,
> and their peers.
>
> What I *am* concerned about is the number of networks that are
> telling me that they want to run IPv6-only at this early stage in the
> transition, and the proposals being made for running IPv4 over those
> IPv6 networks. DSTM is one example; there are other approaches being
> discussed as well. In at least some cases, these are themselves
> networks of networks - a central IPv6-only core operated by one
> administration is tunneled by its customers (other administrations)
> to deliver IPv4 service among them. Here, I get very worried very
> quickly. While it will no doubt work well enough for those that are
> members of the club, interconnection with anyone else is not
> guaranteed. In other cases, I am being told by several networks that
> they expect to have limited IPv4 requirements and expect their
> supporting networks to make good things happen for them. However,
> since I talk with all of them, I know that they are supporting
> networks of each other, and can see that they aren't necessarily
> providing the supporting services to each other. Again, I get very
> worried very quickly.
>
> I really want to hear that they all will run native IPv4 and IPv6
> routing and forwarding at their edges (eg, running dual stack
> networks), and not expect their customers to tunnel them. I really
> and truly want to hear that.

I know that there was some "madated" conversions being discussed a year or
so ago (UK by 2008, Japan by 2010 etc - not sure about years for either) so
I was interested in seeing how these conversions would be affected by the
plans (i.e. early adoption of IPv6 only) before they were ready.