Home
Vendor
Project
  Phase I
Press
  Phase I
About
You Are Using IPv4 To Access This Site
Your IP Address is: 38.103.63.16

RE: URGENT NAv6TF Chair Request : RE: [moonv6] RE: Vista DNS behavior - Re: [nav6tf] IPv6 news - we ekly summary

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Attachment view

From: Bound, Jim (Jim.Bound@hp.com)
Date: 09/18/06


moonv6 post from "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com> John,

> So, to be clear saying: "vendor X is doing Y wrong" is bad?
> Even if that vendor might have a significant install base and
> hinder deployment of this technology (ipv6) through lack of a
> feature or lack of handling a feature correctly/sanely/scalably?

That is totally correct it is not the business or mission of NAv6TF to point out bugs in vendor implementations. What is fair to ask is a question as was asked about DNS and then hear the response. After that it is over and we are not here to correct implementations at all. Now if the vendor asks us directly for input as any client, then that is a different matter and then it is best to assign a leader and those that want to collect data and provide that vendor input from our community. But it has to come in the form of a direct request.

>
> I think I'm in agreement that pounding a vendor is
> needless/pointless, though asking a set of thorough questions
> to illuminate the problem seems to be 'on topic'. Atleast
> it's not far off-topic...

I think that is in agreement from what I say above. We just need to use common sense here that is all. As you say no pounding on or flaming vendors, which did not happen but it was getting a bit past the original question and prudence required me to do what I did and as Chair for the reasons mentioned in my last mail.

>
> >
> > Your second point on the topic of technology I stated
> clearly should
> > be continued for deployment being DNS, DHCP, Management, Transition
> > etc and that conversation should continue and good actually
> result in
> > the NAv6TF forming a deployment view from the mail which we
> can then
> > take a position upon as a body,
>
> Neat, so... how should mixed environments with lack of global
> reachabliity on either v4 or v6 work from a DNS lookup perspective?

We use the root servers for modeling and Moonv6 for testing and we develop a project once thorough discussion has occurred to identify "what deployment problem are we solving". This has been the nature of Moonv6 testing and phases for some time.

>
> >
> > Thus if you could start a new thread on that topic and continue the
> > technology analysis of IPv6 analysis that would be great
> but keep what
> > vendors do what out of the loop.
>
> Sure, in a vendor neutral way, what is a workable solution
> (perhaps there are many) to this problem? (mixed envoironment
> without global
> reachability)

I think so yes. But I do not think there will ever be a default all that can be done most likely is a guiding set of principles in the form of a white paper and advice for deployment. That actually would be a good project for the NAv6TF on this topic, and would probably be useful to our vendor supporters (who I believe would send volunteer SMEs to help in most cases) and our clients.

Thanks John,
/jim

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Attachment view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : 12/01/06 EST