The thing to keep in mind is that enterprises use technology to solve
business problems. Technology is a means to an end, not the end
itself.
For general Internet or internal networking problems, IPv6 doesn't
solve the problem any better than IPv4 does. That is why Enterprises
haven't adopted it for their Internet or general internal networks.
Adding IPv6 is actually worse - it just increases their capex and opex
for no business benefit.
I've heard SR recently called the next MPLS. So how many Enterprises
have adopted MPLS?
When Enterprises need to access IPv6 Internet services, they'll just
IPv6 enable their boundary Internet access security devices and mail
servers.
IPv6 will be used by Enterprises when it either provides a compelling
advantage over IPv4, or where a vendor's "turn key" solution uses it.
I've seen that recently with AMI smartmeter mesh networks.
Here in Victoria, AU, there are probably in the order of 1M+ IPv6 AMI
smart meters across multiple electricity distributors. They're using
IPv6 for that because that is what the vendor's end-to-end AMI
solution uses. They use IPv4 to access the OSS and servers that are
used to troubleshoot that network, and there is no real benefit for
the organisation to deploy IPv6 on their internal LANs to access those
servers.
Inventing a new IPv6 feature just to try to encourage adoption isn't
going to be that successful. The new feature has to be a compelling
solution to a problem that the enterprise has, that justifies the
additional and typically very large expense of deploying IPv6 to get
it.
Regards,
Mark.
On 31 March 2017 at 03:54, Ackermann, Michael
<MAckermann(_at_)bcbsm(_dot_)com>
wrote:
This is something I tried to say at the mic today, but I was too late.
If we put potentially valuable use cases into the bucket of
"Exceptions", this becomes yet another excuse to delay or avoid adoption
of IPv6 by the very large percentage of Enterprises who have yet to do so
(and have no serious plans) today.
I am hopeful that work in the IETF will provide features and hence
motivation for us sadly delinquent Enterprises to begin actually using
IPv6. I am concerned that perception of solutions being "Exceptions" or
non standard, will cause consternation (warranted or not) and avoidance.
-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Suresh
Krishnan
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:30 AM
To: Leddy, John <John_Leddy(_at_)comcast(_dot_)com>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 6man WG
<ipv6(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call conclusion for draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08
Hi John,
Thanks for chiming in. I recognize that you might have use cases that
might be better off with header insertion but I think they should be
handled as and when they come up for consideration (e.g. in the SRv6
discussions). Holding up this document is not going to help in any way in
reinterpreting what RFC2460 intended. My suggestion for proponents of safe
header insertion to write up how it is expected to work and have the
discussion then.
Thanks
Suresh
On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:59 PM, Leddy, John
<John_Leddy(_at_)comcast(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Mar 14, 2017, at 9:47 PM, Suresh Krishnan <
suresh(_dot_)krishnan(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com> wrote:
NEW:
With one exception, extension headers are not examined, processed,
inserted, or deleted by any node along a packet's delivery path,
until the packet reaches the node (or each of the set of nodes, in
the case of multicast) identified in the Destination Address field of
the IPv6 header...
Please feel free to comment either privately or on list if you have
any concerns with this resolution going forward.
Suresh,
I still have concerns that we are eliminating a tool that may prove
very helpful in migrations without understanding its value.
The Internet transition of IPV4 -> Dual Stack V4/V6 -> IPV6 Only; has
been long, operationally complex and full of unexpected challenges.
We are only now starting to make the transition from Dual Stack to IPV6
Only, there are still many unknowns on how to complete this migration.
As we contemplate finishing this major Network shift – We find
ourselves in the early stages of another.
The transition from Physical to Virtual Infrastructure. Again, the
migration will be long, operationally complex and full of unexpected
challenges.
In the old world with Servers running Applications in Physical
locations designed for very predictable loads; using an encap/decap tunnel
to emulate a physical circuit between locations has many attractive
properties – but that is compared to actually ordering and provisioning
real circuits between locations.
In the new world of dynamic resources spun up on demand in distributed
environments across multiple providers, Applications having the
Intelligence and State to bring up their own required connectivity is very
natural. This is where we are putting the majority of our efforts. SRv6
enables very attractive solutions by Applications building their own
headers.
The challenges come as we try to migrate and require these two
infrastructures to Interoperate for a long time.
Burdening the new Virtual world with Old, Static circuit paradigms is
not optimal.
Supplementing the legacy infrastructure with an assist function seems
a reasonable solution. (Ext Hdr insertion/deletion or encap/decap
tunnels)
The preferred assist mechanism seems to be the one that allows the New
World to operate in its final preferred state, sending and receiving
packets with their own headers. (SRv6) But what does an Application in the
new world due when it is attempting to communicate with an Application in
the Old World?
Shouldn’t it build an SRv6 header? That would mean that the assist
function would need to be the last SID in the Segment List and be capable
of removing the SRH.
Wouldn’t it make sense for the assist function to do the same thing in
the reverse direction; an Old World Server talking to a New Virtual World
Application? Insert an SRH.
If this insert/delete of an SRH is prematurely prohibited; What is a
recommended solution to the Real World problem above. Not use case, we are
implementing.
Again; I’m worried we are eliminating a tool that may prove very
helpful, preclude its use in future IETF work and shutdown a path for
Innovation in Networking,
Thank you for asking and listening to my concerns,
John Leddy
Comcast
The information contained in this communication is highly confidential
and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom this
communication is directed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of
this information is prohibited. Please notify the sender, by electronic
mail or telephone, of any unintended receipt and delete the original
message without making any copies.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan
are nonprofit corporations and independent licensees of the Blue Cross and
Blue Shield Association.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------