Subject: (ngtrans) Getting IPv6 Deployed Gathering Needed

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 12:00:18 -0500

Folks,

Things are moving in the IETF but not as fast as the market needs IPv6
to happen.  We have serious implementation issues to address for
deployment like which DNS record, which transition mechanism, specs that are
moving to slow, etc.  

I would like to ask folks to meet me in the lobby of the hotel Thurs eve
at 8 p.m. for a gathering of what we can do outside of the IETF to
assist IPv6 deployment to move more rapidly.  IETF stuff will be done
for that night.  Send me mail privately or grab me at the IETF by Wed
a.m. next week if you can make it.  There are a lot of back room things
going on and I for one am not happy with the evolution of deployment and
totally sick of the politics to appease whatever and we need to use the
shotgun approach here for the market who wants IPv6 A.S.A.P.

I have no clue where we can meet if enough folks are interested but we
will find a place. The lobby is the default and if necessary we will go
to one of the parks near the hotel.  The weather should be fine.

Here is what we need to discuss:

  1.  Vendors - what are the deployment strategies for the next 2 years.
      What is realistic?

  2.  Do we have any killer apps we can move quickly and if necessary
      share code and create a public domain code base?

  3.  What trade-shows do we need to develop a coordinated demonstration
      set for IPv6 on the show floors.  What application demos can 
      we build.

  4.  What trade-rags and analysts do we need to probe through our
      marketing contacts.  One VOIP pundit I have the mail from told
      folks in mail I have that IPv6 is "DEAD" just ask the people 
      working on it at the IETF.  We need to fix this and get the 
      analysts the right information, and the pundits.

  5.  We need a plan for end users and ISPs for deployment.

  6.  We need to determine how we can get information to the various
      goverments worldwide and should form a committee to work just
      on that effort.  The whole issue of ICANN and all that is not
      addressing IPv6 as important as it must and POISED has much
      more difficult issues to address rigth now.  Lets not wait for 
      the present process and between us we can develop a paper that
      we will position with our relevant governments to explain the
      need for Ipv6 and why we may need their support.

  7.  What technology is needed for IPv6 that is happening too slow
      in the IETF or is just going to take forever with the design
      by committee approach.  Especially around transition mechanisms.
      Implementors and Architects bring your ideas.

Do not come to this gathering if your coming to tell us the IETF is
working this or some other body or some czar, etc.  Cause it is not
happening fast enough.  This is for folks who want to develop a plan of
attack to get this done where it is not getting done.  If it is to turn
out to be an IPv6 Consortia or not I just don't know, that is up to the
gathering.

Worst case we can at least determine what is slowing this up and why it
is not moving faster.

This is a grass roots effort and we will not appease the politically
correct attitude, that has slowed IPv6 up thus far, this I suggest should
be this grass roots motto if it happens.   

/jim

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 22:55:52 +0100

Jim,

IMNSHO, IPv6 is now a specified protocol. The main job of a standards
org is over.
What comes next MUST happen outside the IETF, with the IETF serving only
as meeting place/contact area/supporting-protocol standardization.

random thought:

If there were a way in which a Linux/*BSD/*any box could auto-connect to the
6bone when turned on and having IPv4 connectivity, rather than going through
all the "where's my tunnel" mess, grass-roots adoption could happen faster.

One thread I see now is that many people building various applications want
the "I have an address and I know what it is and you know what it is and
know that it's me" paradigm of NAT-less IPv4 back. A lot of these
applications are *NOT*
"old protocols", and could perhaps live easily in an IPv6-over-IPv4 world.

If there was a way to make IPv6 self-deploy.

random ramblings....

                    Harald
-- 
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 03:37:09 +0000

Actually Harald I somewhat disagree. There are still new ideas
on transition mechanisms showing up, and the fact that the base
standards are done doesn't mean that the IETF work is done.
One job we need to talk about is a trawl through all existing
standards looking for IPv4-dependencies (rather like the trawl
we did for Y2K issues). 

Nevertheless there is an issue of getting applications enabled
and deployment rolling, and that's worth a walk in the park.

   Brian

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 08:19:22 -0500

Hi Harald,

>as meeting place/contact area/supporting-protocol standardization.

Only the core specs.  We still need transition mechanisms, DHCPv6,
Routing Protocols, Large Scale Mulitcast, Service Location for IPv6,
etc. etc. etc. to reach draft standards.  But I agree the core specs are
done but there is still work to do in the IETF.

For example we have enough done to deploy for early adopters who will
begin seeding IPv6 with some IPv6 Routers and IPv6 UNIX Servers and High
End Server.  Even  the ISPs could start with the implementations now.
But as an example for a DHCv6 Relay and Server we need IPv6 Multicast
Routing to work and be specified.  This brings to mind also the
importance of Router Renumbering too. Anyway there is still IETF work to
do and implementation evolution to be planned, like which IPv4 system
apps must be there first NFS, Network Utilities, Sys Calls affected by
IPv6, X-Windows, etc... etc.. These are the kinds of questions we need
to ask at a gathering. 

Also some of the assumptions and premises we had are wrong now about how
customers will deploy IPv6.

But if I were to pick the one most urgent reason for IPv6 I would say it
is imperative to keep the paradigm of the end-to-end model in our
professions and on the Internet.  

I like the idea of self-deploying IPv6 nodes we need to think about this
outside of the IETF.

thanks
/jim

---

From: Chris Harding <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 16:29:59 +0000

Dear Jim,

I would like to participate in your lobby meeting. I think that this is an
area in which The Open Group can and should help, not by specification
development, but by -

   - giving users information on the progress of IPv6 and on what it will
mean for them

   - providing a forum in which users and vendors can come together to
discuss 
     deployment issues

   - providing feedback to product developers and to the spec writers in
the IETF.

See you next week!

>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
>IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
>FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
>Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

Regards,

Chris
+++++

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Chris Harding
  T H E    Development Manager
 O P E N   Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading RG1 1AX, UK
G R O U P  Mailto:[email-masked]   Ph: +44 118 950 8311 x2262
           WWW: http://www.opengroup.org    Fx: +44 118 950 0110  

OSF/1, Motif, UNIX and the "X" device are registered trademarks in
the US and other countries, and IT DialTone and The Open Group are
trademarks of The Open Group.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Gregory Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 02:30:40 -0800 (PST)

Gregory Taylor Network Security Analyst Consultant and Contract Unix
Administrator SantaCruz Networks [email-masked]

---

From: Gregory Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 02:32:14 -0800 (PST)

We need to also worry about IP addresses once Internic gets their
hands on IPv6 and deems it a neccessary and serious issue.. They will
start assigning IPs from no where and people that are currently trying to
impliment IPv6 will be left in the dust.

---

From: Bob Fink <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 09:51:20 -0800

Gregory,

>impliment IPv6 will be left in the dust.

The Internic is NOT in charge of IPv6 addresses (or IPv4 addresses for that
matter). A very long, careful and drawn out process of getting the IANA and
the major regional Internet address registries (RIPE-NCC, ARIN and APNIC)
to agree on thoughtful processes to assign IPv6 TLAs and Sub-TLAs is close
to completed. Those of us that have been working on this with them are
pleased with the process and results. Yes, it could move a little faster,
but it is worth doing correctly, and I believe that is what is being done.

Bob Fink
co-chair NGtrans WG

---

From: Gregory Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 12:11:57 -0800 (PST)

Ah, I see,

Thanks for the Info... I was quite concerned that a corporate network
would get ahold of the IPv6 IP blocks and would screw everything up.

Gregory Taylor
Network Security Analyst
Consultant and Contract Unix Administrator
SantaCruz Networks

[email-masked]