From: Pekka Savola (pekkas_at_no.spam)
Date: Sat Mar 23 2002 - 04:39:28 PST
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Liu, Changwen wrote:
> Tony,
> I believe Mobility should also be one important item in the "Areas
> to cover". In the listed environments, you may have scenarios of v6 nodes
> roaming into v6 domain and v4 nodes roaming into v4 domain. Mobility will be
> more than just mixed mode operation and should be addressed separately.
I disagree.
Mobility will be more or less trivial in IPv6 operation, and without it
it's just a very rare special case.
So it's either usually trivial or irrelevant from the global perspective.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Hain [mailto:tony-at-tndh.net]
> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 3:54 PM
> To: ngtrans-at-sunroof.eng.sun.com
> Cc: Margaret Wasserman; Alain Durand; Bob Fink; Randy Bush
> Subject: (ngtrans) Next steps
>
>
> The discussion in the wg meeting on Monday focused on the charter
> update, and the need to clearly identify viable operational environments
> at different phases of the transition to IPv6. To accomplish that the wg
> will need to establish concise descriptions of each target environment,
> then show how at least one set of tools can be applied to accomplish a
> transition. In addition, if there are specific combinations of tools
> which create security or other problems for a given environment, the wg
> will need to highlight those issues.
>
> To get this effort started and provide a discussion framework, the
> co-chairs developed the following bullet points.
>
> Vision of deployment and related issues in a small set of defined
> environments.
> Goals:
> provide network managers with at least one viable framework and
> complete tool set for deploying IPv6.
> expose any mismatch between the requirements of a target environment
> and the ngtrans tool set.
>
> These goals should be self explanatory, but in case there is confusion,
> we are not looking for all possible environments, or approaches to
> deploy IPv6 in an environment. Since we will be describing common
> generic cases, the approach chosen may not even necessarily the best
> approach for any particular network. Rather the goal is to identify
> consistent characteristics of the most common environments.
>
>
> Environments:
> Unmanaged Network (SOHO lan)
> Managed Network (Enterprise lan & vpn)
> ISP service models
> Dial : HFC : DSL : FtoH : 3G
> Services
> www, smtp, IM, ...
>
> This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, rather an example of ways
> to break down the 'network environment' into manageable size pieces. If
> there are additional environments with wide applicability please raise
> them to the list.
>
> These documents need to describe existing operational environments with
> their unique characteristics, independent of the IPv6 transition
> approaches that might be applied. To the extent that major sections of
> the descriptions are common, the result should be a single document,
> while those cases where some parts are common, but the architectural
> approaches vary widely, there should be multiple documents.
>
> For example, deploying IPv6 in an HFC environment will probably be a
> single document, even though some cable modems act as a bridge while
> others act as routers. Outside of this difference, most of the
> associated infrastructure is common across the majority of service
> providers globally. On the other hand, we expect a 3G cell environment
> will probably be described separately from a Dial environment. While
> they may share a common authentication system, it is likely they have
> little else in common.
>
>
> Areas to cover:
> How to get started
> Mixed mode operation
> Viability & path of removing IPv4
> Manageability
> Security concerns
> Applications and their infrastructure
> Broad common issues may be in separate docs
> ISP architecture issues include
> aaa, prefix allocation, dns registration, tunnel services, .
>
> Once the environment is well described, independent of transition
> technologies, there will need to be one or more documents describing the
> possible application of a set of transition tools, and any issues that
> arise over time. In particular the periods of initial IPv6 use, a 50%
> mixed mode, and phasing out of IPv4 will need to be explicitly
> addressed. If there are other notable combinations for any given
> environment, those are expected to be highlighted as well. In addition
> to the basic description of how a set of tools might be used, there will
> need to be a discussion of manageability, security issues, application
> impact, and any services expectations at each of the phases.
>
>
>
> Until those documents are available, the IESG has no context to evaluate
> the tools against. For this reason, there will be a hold placed on all
> other ngtrans projects at least until IETF-54 in Yokohama. This means
> that there will be no existing project work forwarded to the IESG, and
> no new projects accepted. This does not mean that authors and wg
> participants should stop work on these work items, rather that they will
> be reviewed for appropriateness within the updated ngtrans charter.
>
> The current proposed charter is:
>
> The goals of the NGtrans working group is:
> Document operational requirements and recommended practices for major
> pieces of the Internet infrastructure in a mixed world of IPv4 only,
> IPv6 only and dual stack nodes. Those pieces include, but are not
> limited to: Routing, DNS, Mail, Network monitoring, Web, Multicast,
> VoIP,... This work is to be done in cooperation with the relevant
> experts and/or the relevant working groups when applicable.
>
> Any further work items to be evaluated between now and July
>
> Please send comments about this charter to the list.
>
>
> To get the necessary documents started, we first need to agree on the
> breakdown of the environments. Please keep in mind we are looking for
> the high-level environment, so with or without IPv4 nat should be a
> subset of each environment. Send comments to the list, and we will last
> call the set when it appears the discussion is converging.
>
> After the breakdown is agreed upon, we will be looking for volunteers to
> take the lead on specific documents. The target is to have some
> draft-*-00 versions available for comment before the July submission
> cut-off. After the WG agrees that the document adaquately describes a
> generic target environment, work will begin on the description of how a
> set of the ngtrans tools might apply.
>
>
> The NGtrans co-chairs
> Alain, Margaret, & Tony
>
>
-- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri Oct 06 2006 - 00:00:32 PDT