On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:47 PM Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote:
> If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly >> supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is >> seriously problematic and a huge process failure. >> > > That is not an accurate statement. > > The IETF has achieved consensus on this topic. It's explained here by > Brian Carpenter. > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/qWaHXBKT8BOx208SbwWILDXyAUA/ > > He expressly states with many +1s that if something IPv4 related needs to > get worked on , it will be worked on, but the consensus solution to V4 > address exhaustion was IPng that became IPv6, so that is considered a > solved problem. > > Some folks don't LIKE the solution, as is their right to do. But the > problem of V4 address exhaustion is NOT the same thing as "I don't like the > solution that they chose." > I suspect people differ in their understanding of the word "consensus": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus "Definition of *consensus* 1a : general agreement : UNANIMITY <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unanimity>" Versus the IETF: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-resnick-on-consensus-01.html (and subsequently https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282 ) specifically, this paragraph: "Any finding of rough consensus needs at some level to be a satisfactory explanation to the person(s) raising the issue of why their concern is not going to be dealt with. A good outcome is for the objector to be satisfied that, although their issue is not being accommodated in the final product, they understand and accept the outcome. Remember, if the objector feels that the issue is so essential that it must be attended to, they always have the option to file an appeal. A technical error is always a valid basis for an appeal, and a chair or AD has the freedom and the responsibility to say, "The group did not take this technical issue into proper account." Simply having a number of people agreeing to dismiss an objection is not enough." It would seem that Brian Carpenter's message drifted more towards the dictionary definition of "consensus" than what the IETF has historically used to determine "consensus". Brian seems to have tried to sweep under the carpet a very serious problem without properly addressing it, by saying (direct quote): "We shouldn't be fixing problems that IPv6 already fixes, and shortage of addresses is certainly in that category." But as anyone who has tried to deploy IPv6-only networks quickly discovers, at the present time, you can't deploy an IPv6-only network with any success on the global internet today. There's too many IPv6-ish networks out there that haven't fully established their infrastructure to be reachable without v4 connectivity also in place. In order to deploy an IPv6 network today, you *must* also have IPv4 addresses to work with. Try to ping apple.com via v6, or microsoft.com via v6, and see how far you get. Closer to home, try to ping juniper.com/juniper.net via v6, or nokia.com, and you'll find there's a whole bunch of assumptions that you've got some level of working IPv4 in the picture to talk to your hardware and software vendors. In short, at the moment, you *can't* deploy IPv6 without also having IPv4 somewhere in your network. IPv6 hasn't solved the problem of IPv4 address shortage, because you can't functionally deploy IPv6 without also having at least some IPv4 addresses to act as endpoints. For the people who already have IPv4 addresses to say "hey, that's not a problem for us" to everyone who can't get IPv4 addresses is exactly the problem warned against in section 6 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282: " 6 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282#section-6>. One hundred people for and five people against might not be rough consensus Section 3 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282#section-3> discussed the idea of consensus being achieved when objections had been addressed (that is, properly considered, and accommodated if necessary). Because of this, using rough consensus avoids a major pitfall of a straight vote: If there is a minority of folks who have a valid technical objection, that objection must be dealt with before consensus can be declared. " The point at which we have parity between IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity is the point at which we can start to talk about sunsetting IPv4 and declaring it historic, and no longer concern ourselves with address exhaustion. Until then, so long as being able to obtain IPv4 addresses is a mandatory step in being functional on the internet, it is unreasonable to say that the address exhaustion problem is "solved." Matt
