On Mon, 13 Apr 2015, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
Lee and I are reviewing the v6ops charter. I have attached a proposed charter
and diffs against the current one. Joel has not commented on this yet, and
while we have run it by the sunset4 chairs, we haven’t gotten a reading from
them. Sunset4 is relevant because possibly the ipv4-as-a-service discussion
would be better handled there. In this email, I’m soliciting opinions in
general.
The charter update started with Lee feeling that the fourth bullet of our
current charter, which reads
4. Publish Informational or BCP RFCs that identify and analyze
solutions for deploying IPv6 within common network environments,
such as ISP Networks, Enterprise Networks, Unmanaged Networks
(Home/Small Office), and Cellular Networks.
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/charter/)
is largely done. We know how to deploy IPv6.
Hm, while I generally agree with you, does this mean that these kinds of
RFCs will be out-of-scope for v6ops going forward? I would hate for us to
take this out of the charter and then turn people away when they show up
with a document for a solution we didn't think of yet.
Or perhaps paragraph 1 is enough to allow for capturing these kinds of
documents?
4. Describe an operational roadmap to IPv6-only network deployment,
with or without IPv4 delivered as an overlay or translation
service.
Fully agreed.
On another point, Lee and I have been discussing the operational reports
we had at IETF 92, and feel that was time well spent. Those had a common
thread, which was the deployment of Softwire’s MAP-E and MAP-T
technologies in their networks. We are thinking about asking companies
deploying IPv6 in Europe, Asia, and South America to make reports in the
coming three meetings, on their IPv6 deployments and the issues they
face. Would that be of general interest? How would you propose to tune
that concept?
I think this is worthwile, as long as it's not going to be come a long
list of 10-15 minute presentations saying the same thing. For those, we
can keep it on the list. I always welcome operational reports in the
meetings, but they need to contain news, not "we experienced the same
thing as <foo> and solved it the same way".
I would like to hear from the ds.lite deployers out there, I know they
exist. Also from 464XLAT+NAT64 deployments (probably in mobile).
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
sunset4 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
