Details
-
Type:
RFC
-
Status: Withdrawn
-
Resolution: Done
-
Component/s: DM
-
Labels:None
Description
Historically, the members of the NET group argued that the decision of having IPv6 on the Long Haul Network (LHN) is a DM decision.
This RFC is to collect opinions about it.
Facts about the LHN
- The LHN is a private network from La Serena to SLAC
- Links are either L1 or L2 using VPLS on some paths.
- There is BGP on top of the links mostly to simplify configurations and to do failover.
- There's no IPv6 enabled inside Rubin Network.
My opinion:
If we can guarantee that we won't have a path inside the LHN in ipv6, I would say that we should stay in ipv4. However, since we can't guarantee that all the links won't have ipv6 requirements, especially the ESNet link between Atlanta and SLAC, we should implement ipv6 now (dual-stack), before the hard requirement comes in the middle of operations.
I don't believe there are any restrictions in the DM-developed middleware or application code; everything is using domain names or URLs that can contain IPv4 or IPv6 addresses.
The costs of using IPv6 with underlying tools such as Kubernetes, IPAM, etc. are definitely a factor that needs to be considered.
This goes beyond the RFC scope, but perhaps it might be more acceptable to have these requirements than a fully general "IPv6 everywhere":
The intent would be to allow for internal IPv4-only with translation at the boundaries.