Guidelines for Using IPv6 Transition Mechanisms during IPv6 Deployment
RFC 6180
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-10-14 |
14 | (System) | Notify list changed from jari.arkko@piuha.net, fred@cisco.com, draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines@ietf.org, kurtis@kurtis.pp.se to kurtis@kurtis.pp.se |
2012-08-22 |
14 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Sean Turner |
2012-08-22 |
14 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk |
2012-08-22 |
14 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Ralph Droms |
2012-08-22 |
14 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Dan Romascanu |
2012-08-22 |
14 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Adrian Farrel |
2011-05-31 |
14 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue. |
2011-05-27 |
14 | (System) | RFC published |
2011-01-10 |
14 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
2011-01-07 |
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2011-01-07 |
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2011-01-07 |
14 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2011-01-07 |
14 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2011-01-07 |
14 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2011-01-07 |
14 | Cindy Morgan | Approval announcement text regenerated |
2011-01-07 |
14 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup text changed |
2010-12-27 |
14 | Ron Bonica | Approval announcement text changed |
2010-12-27 |
14 | Ron Bonica | Approval announcement text regenerated |
2010-12-27 |
14 | Ron Bonica | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
2010-12-27 |
14 | (System) | New version available: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-14.txt |
2010-12-27 |
14 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2010-12-27 |
14 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call::AD Followup. |
2010-12-22 |
13 | (System) | New version available: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-13.txt |
2010-12-17 |
14 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-12-16 |
2010-12-16 |
14 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Shawn Emery. |
2010-12-16 |
14 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call::AD Followup from In Last Call. |
2010-12-16 |
14 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2010-12-16 |
12 | (System) | New version available: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-12.txt |
2010-12-16 |
14 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2010-12-16 |
14 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2010-12-16 |
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-11.txt |
2010-12-16 |
14 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ralph Droms has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2010-12-16 |
14 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2010-12-16 |
14 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] Nit Section 4.2 There are several types tunneling mechanisms s/types/types of/ |
2010-12-16 |
14 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot discuss] Excellent document: thanks. Holding a Discuss until the IETF LC completes |
2010-12-16 |
14 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2010-12-16 |
14 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] Not putting in a position since the LC has not ended yet. |
2010-12-16 |
14 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2010-12-16 |
14 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2010-12-15 |
14 | Sean Turner | [Ballot discuss] I hate to just list a bunch of documents as references, but we've just reviewed draft-ietf-opsec-ip-security and draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns is coming down the pipe. … [Ballot discuss] I hate to just list a bunch of documents as references, but we've just reviewed draft-ietf-opsec-ip-security and draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns is coming down the pipe. Should these and maybe some others you think are important be listed in the security considerations? |
2010-12-15 |
14 | Sean Turner | [Ballot discuss] I hate to just list a bunch of documents as references, but we've just reviewed draft-ietf-opsec-ip-security and draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns is coming down the pipe. … [Ballot discuss] I hate to just list a bunch of documents as references, but we've just reviewed draft-ietf-opsec-ip-security and draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns is coming down the pipe. Should these and maybe some others be listed as security considerations? |
2010-12-15 |
14 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2010-12-15 |
14 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] +1 on Ralph's discuss. In light of the Last Call closing 12-27, it seems premature to gauge IETF consensus. |
2010-12-15 |
14 | Tim Polk | [Ballot discuss] This is a discuss-discus. To be clear, I am not asking for any changes in the document with respect to this issue at … [Ballot discuss] This is a discuss-discus. To be clear, I am not asking for any changes in the document with respect to this issue at this time. Section 3, Principles, opens with the following statement: The end goal is network-wide native IPv6 deployment, resulting in the obsolescence of transitional mechanisms based on encapsulation, tunnels, or translation, and also resulting in the obsolescence of IPv4. I do not think that these are the goals of someone deploying an IPv6 network on the Internet. Their motivations for deploying IPv6 are more likely focused on address availability and the availability of specific features. Even more than that, most IPv6 deployments are more focused on ensuring connectivity with the installed IPv4 base than IPv6 purity. Citing obsolescence of IPv4 as a goal makes the document less convincing to this reader. I don't think refining the goals would change the set of transition strategies to be discussed, but I think there is a tone issue that results from the anti-IPv4 goals. A more actionable discuss issue: while this document doesn't create new security issues, a discussion of the relevant issues probably should take place in this spec. |
2010-12-15 |
14 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2010-12-15 |
14 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2010-12-15 |
14 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2010-12-15 |
14 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot discuss] This is a DISCUSS-DISCUSS, as I am not sure that the issue I am raising needs to be reflected in this document, but … [Ballot discuss] This is a DISCUSS-DISCUSS, as I am not sure that the issue I am raising needs to be reflected in this document, but I feel it is important enough to be raised with the IESG in the context of this document. I would expect that a discussion on the transition mechanisms to IPv6 includes a reference about the network management tools that need to be used during the transition, and what would be the requirements from the network management systems during the transition in the different scenarios. One aspect of the problem is touched by in section 4.3 (addressability of managed systems) but this is only one of the multiple aspects to be discussed. Is the place for such a discussion in this document? |
2010-12-15 |
14 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2010-12-15 |
14 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot discuss] It like the IETF last call on this doc "ends 2010-12-27". Should it be on this week's agenda? |
2010-12-15 |
14 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2010-12-14 |
14 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2010-12-12 |
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-10.txt |
2010-12-08 |
14 | David Harrington | Request for Early review by TSVDIR is assigned to Spencer Shepler |
2010-12-08 |
14 | David Harrington | Request for Early review by TSVDIR is assigned to Spencer Shepler |
2010-12-07 |
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-09.txt |
2010-12-03 |
14 | Amanda Baber | We understand that this document does not require any IANA actions. |
2010-12-01 |
14 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2010-12-01 |
14 | Ron Bonica | Ballot has been issued by Ron Bonica |
2010-12-01 |
14 | Ron Bonica | Created "Approve" ballot |
2010-12-01 |
14 | Ron Bonica | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-12-16 |
2010-11-30 |
14 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery |
2010-11-30 |
14 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery |
2010-11-29 |
14 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
2010-11-29 |
14 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: <draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-08.txt> (Guidelines for Using IPv6 Transition Mechanisms during IPv6 Deployment) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Guidelines for Using IPv6 Transition Mechanisms during IPv6 Deployment' <draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-08.txt> as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2010-12-27. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines/ |
2010-11-29 |
14 | Ron Bonica | Last Call was requested by Ron Bonica |
2010-11-29 |
14 | Ron Bonica | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed by Ron Bonica |
2010-11-29 |
14 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2010-11-29 |
14 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2010-11-29 |
14 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2010-11-23 |
14 | Ron Bonica | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed from AD Evaluation by Ron Bonica |
2010-11-23 |
14 | Ron Bonica | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Ron Bonica |
2010-11-09 |
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-08.txt |
2010-11-08 |
14 | Cindy Morgan | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Kurt Erik Lindqvist, kurtis@kurtis.pp.se. I have reviewed the document and believe it's read for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has been through working group last call in v6ops and had a through review. Minor issues brought up at WGLC have been addressed in the last version of the document. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The view of the document shepherd is that the document has been discussed thoroughly and that the WG as a whole understands the document. Concurrence with the document is strong, with a very limited number of people suggesting that technologies they have worked on should be given more prominence in the document. It's the document shepherder's view that this has been adequately addressed in the revised document. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) There has been no threat of appeal. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and ). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? The current version of the document produces the following warnings : Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC5218' is defined on line 839, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-arkko-ipv6-only-experience-00 == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-behave-address-format has been published as RFC 6052 == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios has been published as RFC 6036 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2766 (Obsoleted by RFC 4966) Summary: 0 errors (**), 4 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. But a new version correcting these is being submitted when that is allowed again. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? It has. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. All normative references exists. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? There are no IANA implications. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? There are no such sections. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary As the date of IANA depletion for the IPv4 pool draws closer, the interest in IPv6 deployment at network operators are increasing. However, there are a lot of new expertise needed, as well as deployment scenarios and associated choices when it comes to transitioning technologies. This document outlines some of the common deployment situations and strategies for choosing the right tools. The document also outlines some recommendations for common deployment models of transition technologies. Working Group Summary The working group reviewed and discussed the draft. There was a point of rough consensus, but in general respondents said the document was relevant, useful, and appropriate. Document Quality The document is readable to a native speaker of English. |
2010-11-08 |
14 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
2010-11-08 |
14 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'Kurt Erik Lindqvist (kurtis@kurtis.pp.se) is the document shepherd.' added by Cindy Morgan |
2010-10-25 |
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-07.txt |
2010-08-21 |
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-06.txt |
2010-08-21 |
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-05.txt |
2010-08-18 |
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-04.txt |
2010-07-12 |
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-03.txt |
2010-07-11 |
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-02.txt |
2010-02-25 |
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-01.txt |
2010-02-13 |
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-00.txt |