Subject: RE: (ngtrans) moving to IPv6

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:45:33 -0500

> >In fact at this time the industry, vendors, and users are 
> way ahead of
> >the NGTRANS group and scenarios are all ready being packaged and
> >delivered to deploy IPv6 as we speak.  My hope is that those vendor
> >solutions are good input to the continued NGTRANS process.
> 
> Don't you think that it makes sense for us to work with these
> people, document the conclusions that they have come to, and
> make sure that our tools are well-suited to address the situations
> in which they will be used?

Yes and we are here working in NGTRANS.

But let me try to explain a problem.

The customer and vendor (or vendors in the case of partnerships) develop
an IPv6 deployment strategy.  Part of that (and only part of that) is
Transition and how to use mechanisms developed in the IETF and out of
the IETF in some cases (custom vendor tools for transition etc...).
Right now it would be illegal for either to share this with the IETF in
the form it is as a deployment strategy.   So what we would have to do
is publish it as a white paper which is what I suggested for example for
DSTM.

Another point.  The solutions developed are not generic and specific to
each customers needs and deployment rate and financial commitment.  We
don't work on things like that in the IETF we try to solve all potential
problems that may not be needed by different cases.  Working with
customers each one is precious and gets to solve problems differently.
Clearly when a bunch of them do it the same way thats wonderful for any
vendor, and will be the case usually.

What the IETF role is here is to building the standard mechanisms that
will work with IPv6.  Defining how the market deploys with them is out
of scope for the IETF IMO and besides the processes here simply cannot
now keep up with the speed, rate, or acceleration of adoption the IETF
is too slow now for deployment.  The market cannot wait any longer.

But I do believe getting us folks that are building real products and
working with real customers and doing product transition tools is a good
idea.  But to often thats not the people selected for design teams in
the IETF and thats to bad and another reason its too slow.

regards,
/jim

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:06:42 -0800

Jim,

You are correct that the IETF can not and should not try to define
specific deployment strategies for a particular network. Vendors will
need to work closely with their customers to identify the details in
these cases. On the other hand, there are general deployment models that
many networks use, and it is appropriate for ngtrans to show at least
one configuration of the tool set that can be used for that general
model.

Yes the market is trying to move beyond where the IETF is, but it is
still necessary for ngtrans to provide some degree of guidance about an
appropriate use of the tools. This will not prevent vendors from showing
their customers how a particular configuration of the tool set will
apply to a specific environment. There is no reason to wait for the
IETF. On the contrary, please help distill and document the general
models used so the overall pace of deployment can step up by reducing
the current level of confusion.

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Bound, Jim
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 11:46 AM
> To: Margaret Wasserman
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: (ngtrans) moving to IPv6
>
>
>