Enterprise IPv6 Transition Analysis IETF 62 IPv6 Operations Working Group March 7-11, 2005 Minneapolis, MN Presenter Jim Bound Jim Bound (Editor), Yanick Pouffary, Tim Chown, Dave Green, and Steve Klynsma

Changes from -00 to -01 Changed abstract and context of document to only deal with dual IP layer networks and nodes. Changed introduction, Section 1-3 to reflect authors and IETF WG discussions to attempt consensus on these initial sections. Added explanation of why Appendix A is in the document to introduction. Expanded what topics are out of scope for this document. Updated terminology section Updated section 3 matrix and description to simplify and focus on dual IP layer. Edited base text of Sections 4-7 but all three require extensive additional test for descriptions. Edited section 8 and removed table and will reference table in section 3. This section still needs to be written

Matrix Update Discussion Matrix has been simplified to most common use cases for the next 18 months for deployment only. This spec cannot possibly address the need for the Enterprise beyond 18 months. IPv6 ONLY and the nomenclature removed. Dual Stack exists in all cases This spec is addressing Layer 3 only This spec is not addressing other issues such as Multihoming (see the spec). This spec is not a place to add transition issues that apply to all Scenarios and Analysis especially at the Applications Layer Do we need to add new cases in the matrix?

Sections that need more work from the little input we received from the WG Section 3 could expand text to discuss the permutations? Section 5 doesn't yet discuss pros and cons of connecting sparse nodes, nor management/security issues. We need to add that in Section 6 needs more work to discuss dominant IPv6 and difference from v6 only nomenclature. Section 7 needs much work and more writing and analysis presented. Section 8 needs to be written but can run risk of selecting transition mechanisms, so needs to be written in very objective manner. Need to add non-normative references.

Next Steps and Status Complete the sections as planned currently? Complete the sections but add new input from WG? Tentative Suggestion: If we started writing, and all team members contributed actual “writing” on March 28 th we can probably get updated spec by April 28 th ? But, not all authors can dedicate continuous cycles to this effort, and editor recommends they leave the team if they cannot work on the spec in this timeframe as stellar contributor? We are all busy on this team and most of us have things to do between now and end April, and even the proposed dates need to be checked on the team, can this WG wait, or should we assign a new team of authors? Plus the uncertain outcome of v6ops Charter, where engineers work on transition mechanisms, and zero input from the working group except for Pekka S. as Chair, is not motivating this team to complete the specification. How important is this spec to the WG? The Japan IPv6 Promotional Council IPv6 Deployment Guide is excellent work and many Enterprises have that now and may make moot any of our IETF analysis documents. Should we continue?

Thanks for your Time Discussion ?????????