I would not say "standard dual stack" because i think the requirements
can be even less IPv6 than what i consider to be standard dual stack
with our existing ANIMA RFCs:
A) The networks data-plane can be almost (*) solely IPv4 if that is the
(enterprise, industrial,...) network stack desired in a network.
The operator of such a network does not have to know or configure any IPv6.
(*) The only IPv6 artefact is the IPv6 link-local encap of ACP secure
channel, but that is also fully automatic and nothing the operator
would need to ever care about. And it could be optimized away through
simple follow on draft (ethernet L2 encap "optimization" for secure channel).
B) Wrt the NOC: in pre-standard ACP implementations, for IPv4-only-network
customers, I did set up ACP-connect edge router + NAT to connect to
IPv4 only management systems / NOC. When such a NAT is included as a
feature into an ACP-edge router config it can be quite simple and elegant
(e.g.: almost fully automatic, no per-ACP-node NAT config).
Let me know when you have an ACP edge-router implementation and i'll
be happy to whip up a IPv4/IPv6 NAT draft for it if that is what is
missing to sell the ACP solution to IPv4 only customers ;-))
Cheers
Toerless
(via gigantic screen)
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 10:08:29PM +1200, Brian Carpenter wrote:
> We don't require any IPv6 enablement by the NOC. All we require is standard
> dual stack on all autonomic devices, which creates link-local addresses.
> Everything else in the ACP is automatic. Why waste any effort on an IPv4
> version? (The operator can do whatever they want in the data plane, of
> course.)
>
> Regards,
> Brian Carpenter
> (via tiny screen & keyboard)
>
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021, 20:01 Liyizhou, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > RFC8994 explained the main reasons that ACP is based on IPv6 addressing
> > are simplicity and scale.
> >
> > I wonder if there was/is any interest in defining and deploying ACP in
> > IPv4-only network without requiring IPv6 enablement.
> >
> > For example, as ULA and link-local address schemes are not available in
> > ipv4 networks, whether and how to establish the ACP channel? (RFC3927
> > defines IPv4 link-local address config, but it is not a full functional
> > substitute of ipv6 link-local address in ipv4 world in my understanding.)
> >
> >
> >
> > There might be discussions and thoughts in this aspect in earlier days in
> > the community. I would be very appreciated if anyone can point them out.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Yizhou
> > _______________________________________________
> > Anima mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
--
---
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
