Hi,
Please let us know if you have any questions after reading the draft.
I have no questions. IMHO the draft is unnecessary and potentially harmful. It's a matter of common sense that the IETF will fix things that *need* fixing, even if they are specific to IPv4. It's a matter of fact that IPv4 will continue to coexist with IPv6 until nobody uses IPv4 any more. But it would be a mistake to apply scarce IETF resources for anything but serious fixes, and this draft opens the door to that. Consider for example the phrase "ongoing standardization" near the end of section 7. That is exactly what we do not need. FWIW I do not consider the minor wastage of IPv4 addresses that the same authors are concerned about to be serious enough to need fixing. We shouldn't be fixing problems that IPv6 already fixes, and shortage of addresses is certainly in that category. When there is an issue that is serious enough to justify IETF effort, and specific to IPv4, the intarea WG charter already allows for it. That's why this draft seems unnecessary to me. Regards Brian Carpenter On 16-Mar-22 07:59, Seth David Schoen wrote:
Hi intarea, When we presented our reserved address space drafts at the previous IETF meeting, we noticed that the most common concern was not so much about the substance of our proposals as about the question of whether intarea and the IETF should be working on IPv4 fixes at all. This question has been discussed on and off over the past few years. It was, in a way, the subject of an entire now-concluded working group in its own right (sunset4). We thought we should go to the heart of the matter and propose to confirm that the IETF intends to keep maintaining IPv4. As our draft notes, this is the opposite of a proposed consensus item from sunset4 which stated that the IETF would stop working on IPv4. That notion raised many concerns for community members, and we now hope to see whether a consensus to continue maintaining IPv4 can be found. Our draft emphasizes that IPv4 is the most-used network layer protocol in the world, that it's expected to be widely used for the foreseeable future, that the IETF is the historic home of IPv4 standardization, and that there continue to be coordination tasks for IPv4 implementations which the IETF is best-suited to host. Those include not only our own proposals about address space, but also numerous work items on various IPv4 topics that have arisen and become RFCs over the past decade. Our draft does not question or alter the community's consensus in favor of IPv6 adoption, but states that neglecting IPv4 is not a part of the IETF's transition plan. You can find it at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-ietf-maintaining-ipv4/ We invite discussion leading up to our presentation and Q&A at the intarea session (13:30 UTC) on Tuesday, March 22, during IETF113 in Vienna. Please let us know if you have any questions after reading the draft. _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
