Re: [egov-ms] Groups - Making the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 -removing the barriers (IPv6_Guidance Doc_v1.0.pdf) uploaded

[Tony Rutkowski <tony@yaanatech.com>]

Hi John,

My concerns are several fold.

First, the subject matter is far outside the remit and subject
matter expertise of OASIS.  The information can be exchanged
on a "wet string" as far as OASIS is concerned.

Second, IP protocols and their respective merits have
been a complex and highly controversial subject with
divergent viewpoints for more than 20 years.

Third, the OASIS treatment ignores these complexities
and makes simplistic political assertions that arguably
make the network protocol operations problems worse
rather than better.  Some substantial clues include 1) the
profound lack of use of IPv6 after 15 years, 2) the
substantial amount of literature on the subject arguing
against IPv6, and 3) the emergence of very important
alternatives like LISP that are being implemented.

The definitive paper here on deployment metrics
is Geoff Huston's APNIC/RIPE presentation
showing actual IPv6 use as 0.4% today.

It is not for me to do the research here and develop text.
This should have been done in the drafting process
rather than simply passing along the views of some
OECD committee - which frankly is meaningless in
the real world of network operations.  Alternatively
one might want to check out:
http://lisp4.cisco.com/lisp_tech.html

At this point, if no one else cares, OASIS can simply
live with this as IMHO very bad guidance, and an example
of subject matter that OASIS should avoid.  ...and if
anyone thinks I'm overstating the concerns, you might
take a look at
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/46743
(There are plenty more like this.)

--tony


On 6/22/2010 7:06 AM, John Borras wrote:
> May I suggest that if you want us to re-consider the content and messages of the paper that you provide us with some alternative text, and pointers to published material that contradicts the wide advice on this topic and in particular the recent report from the OECD/ITAC committee.  We will re-consider anything that you provide and include an alternative and balanced LISP view if we feel it appropriate.
>
>