> > In terms of new work, the only thing I'd like to see is > that driven by > > a clear and compelling need from folk that are seriously trying to > > deploy IPv6 and can identify a real gap in available standards. I > > don't doubt there is some work to be done here, but it needs to be > > driven by a real, concrete need, not just be yet more "tinkeritus". I do see that clear and compelling need, not to tinker, but to document the current state of IPv6 in order to assist operational deployment in both network operators and enterprises. The fact that IPv4 addresses are heading towards exhaustion in two to three years from now is one of those exceptional situations that demands some support from the IETF. For those people who believe that IPv6 deployment is the best answer to this crisis, what do they need to know about IPv6 in order to make good deployment decisions? > 'Indeed. I'm not looking for a book at all, but an RFC which > summarizes the current state of IPv6 that can be used as an > authoritative source to win arguments with people who are > still stuck in IPv4 thinking. At this point, I have to trawl > through dozens of RFCs looking for this information, or else > use one of the books Brian recommended and hope that the fact > of his recommendation holds some weight' > > It's that "dozens of RFCs" that grabs my attention (and makes > me think, how many > more?) For me, it's not enough to say 'we are done'; we need > to do more, like produce the that ultimate RFC as well (well, > ultimate until the experience of deployment demands a change). For example, RFC 4294 was produced to give an overview of IPv6 targetted at implementers. It is terse and leaves most of the details to the RFCs that it references which is reasonable since an implementer MUST read all those RFCs in order to get everything right. But for operations folks who are deploying IPv6, they should not need to read through a dozen or more RFCs to understand the current state of IPv6. If you look at V6OPS http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/v6ops-charter.html there are already 27 RFCs and more on the way. The root of the problem is IPv4 thinking and that is rooted in the IPv4 addressing architecture. Since the IPv6 addressing architecture is poorly documented (scattered among several RFCs) the IETF does not have an authoritative source that describes the IPv6 addressing architecture. This is absolutely fundamental to IPv6 deployment because early on in the planning stage you need to understand IPv6 addressing, and develop your own IPv6 addressing plan that forms the architecture of your deployment. The RFCs on addressing talk about site-local addresses or TLAs which cause people to mistrust them. The solution is to publish an RFC targetted at operational deployment that serves as an authoritative overview of IPv6. --Michael Dillon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf