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> Sorry meant Chris not John. As I said I am on travel and rushing with responses. Apologies.
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bound, Jim
> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 11:50 PM
> To: 'Christopher L. Morrow'
> Cc: John L Lee; Bill Cerveny; McGuerty, Jay S.; Chris
> Mitchell; Durand, Alain; Dave Green; Joya Subudhi;
> nav6tf@ipv6forum.com; moonv6@iol.unh.edu
> Subject: RE: URGENT NAv6TF Chair Request : RE: [moonv6] RE:
> Vista DNS behavior - Re: [nav6tf] IPv6 news - we ekly summary
>
> 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