[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [BEHAVE] [Softwires] [Int-area] next steps for ipv4-ipv6 co-existenceandan interimmeeting
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Townsley [mailto:townsley@cisco.com]
>Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 7:01 AM
>To: Dan Wing
>Cc: Templin, Fred L; 'Jari Arkko'; 'Internet Area';
>behave@ietf.org; 'IPv6 Operations'; softwires@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [Softwires] [Int-area] next steps for
>ipv4-ipv6 co-existenceandan interimmeeting
>
>Dan Wing wrote:
>>>> Did I miss anything?
>>>>
>>> I was not able to attend the meeting; were considerations
>>> for ipv4-ipv6 coexistence in enterprise networks discussed?
>>>
>>
>> I believe most everyone is thinking of the Internet, rather
>> than enterprise networks.
>>
>> If there are unique enterprise requirements it would be
>> valuable to incorporate them into a requirements document
>> (either in draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req or in the
>> document that Jari's email said that Jari and Mark Townsley
>> are writing -- I'm not sure which one would be best).
>>
>Enterprise networks did come up, at least twice, at the Mic.
>
>First, I don't think we need to reiterate any enterprise requirements
>that are solved by dual-stack deployment. In the vast number of cases,
>this is the most general and safest bet to begin IPv6
>deployment today.
>The real argument is where the tipping point is for when one can and
>should turn off IPv4 within their network, and whether deploying
>additional tools to help accelerate this are on the whole advantageous
>or more trouble than they are worth.
IMHO, IPv4 makes a fine link layer for IPv6 and based on
what I can tell this is especially true when there may be
competing interests within the enterprise such that it is
not just "one big happy family". Also when there may be a
need for deeply-nested enterprises-within-enterprises.
>Some passionate arguments
>were made
>that, indeed, there are significant operational advantages to
>moving the
>network away from dual-stack and directly to a single IPv6 stack model
>in short order. Further, that in settings where the network
>equipment is
>relatively modern and the applications fairly well-known or
>under tight
>control, that it is conceivably a realistic option even today (or at
>least "real soon now"). At this high level, I think that the
>case falls
>roughly into 1.d, i.e. something similar to what I had depicted as the
>"greenfield wireless network." Tools that could be useful here include
>some version of dual-stack light or NAT64, depending on how
>much control
>you have over your host stacks.
AFAICT, dual-stack light/NAT64 approaches would work fine
in a coexisting IPv6/IPv4 network. It may look like NATs
within NATs at the IPv4 level, but the IPv6 overlay sees
it as all-IPv6 with no NAT traversal requirements.
>Which to deploy really depends on the
>pain threshold of obtaining equipment for and running the two IP's
>side-by-side, on top of one another, or translated at an edge point.
Or all of the above.
Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>
>- Mark
>
>> -d
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Behave mailing list
>> Behave@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>>
>>
>
>