Starting a discussion thread here as suggested by Lee Howard in the the session yesterday.
My sense of the comments in the room (while I don't remember a hum) was that while it was still too early to advance "IPv4 to Historic", there would be value in sending a clear message that we are on a path to move IPv4 to Historic at some point in the future. This could either be through sunset4 or preferably by an IETF governance statement. Some topics for discussion seemed to be: * Should there be clear guidance to IETF WGs and other standards bodies that it is acceptable to develop IPv6-only protocols without consideration for IPv4? (With the caveat that practical deployments may still have a need to inter-operate with IPv4, if only as providing IPv4-as-a-service over IPv6.) Are there particular efforts (eg, 5G) where we should be encouraging an "IPv6-first" mindset as part of the design, and is this something we can do? * Do we set a time-table for moving to Historic or base this off some adoption metric? (80% global IPv6 adoption? IPv6-only deployments becoming commonplace in multiple scenarios outside of a few large companies?) * Are there other things we can do to reduce the time-window where everyone has to deal with full dual-stack complexity? (For example, fixing issues that remain with some of the transition technologies that allow for IPv6-only connectivity with IPv4-as-a-service?) * What would be a good thing to call this: directionally historic, end-of-engineering, "It's Complicated", to-be-deprecated, ... (In particular, we need to make sure the statement made sets expectations but is is inline with present reality.)
_______________________________________________ sunset4 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
