Whether this document is needed or not, it would be useful to have ti focus on IPv4 issues.
Many of the examples of protocol updates in Sec 6 are not related to IPv4, e.g., TCP and DNS. The only arguable inclusion would be multicast DNS, but there is a big difference between extensions that work equally well for IPv4 and IPv6 and those focused on IPv4. These examples should be removed. Joe — Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist www.strayalpha.com > On Mar 19, 2022, at 4:49 AM, Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com> wrote: > > Hi, Seth: > > 0) Thanks for sharing your effort. It is very prudent and not one day too > soon. > > 1) I am new to this mailing list. Our team has worked out a scheme called > EzIP, whereby the long-reserved 240/4 netblock may be utilized to expand the > assignable IPv4 address pool significantly by deploying an overlay network. > So, there will be no interference between the two. EzIP does not need any new > protocol, but just makes use of RFC791. It not only resolves the IPv4 > depletion issue, but also mitigates the root cause to cyber insecurity, plus > offers facilities to conduct new experiments. However, attempts to convey > this finding to the Internet community met puzzling responses. We could not > comprehend how the primarily utilized protocol in the worldwide communication > infrastructure could be treated as past tense. It is totally irrational. > > 2) This draft by your team is very important for everyone to maintain the > Internet at its healthiest state as possible. So that we can conduct > productive dialogs. > > Regards, > > Abe (2022-03-19 07:48 EDT) > VP Engineering > Avinta Communications, Inc. > Milpitas, CA 95035 USA > eMail: ayc...@avinta.com <mailto:ayc...@avinta.com> > WebSite: www.Avinta.com <http://www.avinta.com/> > > > > > > > > > On 2022-03-15 15:00, int-area-requ...@ietf.org > <mailto:int-area-requ...@ietf.org> wrote: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Re: Int-area Digest, Vol 199, Issue 14 >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 11:59:20 -0700 >> From: Seth David Schoen <sch...@loyalty.org> <mailto:sch...@loyalty.org> >> To: IETF intarea WG <int-area@ietf.org> <mailto:int-area@ietf.org> >> Cc: John Gilmore <g...@rfc.toad.com> <mailto:g...@rfc.toad.com>, Dave Taht >> <d...@taht.net> <mailto:d...@taht.net> >> Subject: [Int-area] New draft: The IETF Will Continue Maintaining IPv4 >> (draft-schoen-intarea-ietf-maintaining-ipv4) >> Message-ID: <20220315185920.gm918...@frotz.zork.net> >> <mailto:20220315185920.gm918...@frotz.zork.net> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >> >> 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/ >> <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. >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Subject: Digest Footer >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Int-area mailing list >> Int-area@ietf.org <mailto:Int-area@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> End of Int-area Digest, Vol 199, Issue 14 >> ***************************************** > > > > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon> > Virus-free. www.avast.com > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link> > > <x-msg://26/#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>_______________________________________________ > 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
