I have a hunch if IPv4 isn't declared historic now, that a year from now you'll be in exactly the same place w.r.t. people saying "not yet"
"Directionally historic" etc describes the truth of IPv4 for 20 years now - so declaring such a thing is the equivalent of me saying "I will die someday" - not news, and nobody's behavior changes as a result of me saying this. The goal of declaring IPv4 historic is not to report on an already achieved truth but to create behavioral change. To make it so that it is harder to do new v4 things and well near impossible to do new v4 only things. If your goal is to accelerate v6 adoption and usage, start from that position of strength (declare v4 historic) and skillfully and non-pedantically make exceptions as the world needs them. Show grace in allowing new v4 technologies and changes if they hasten and ease transition to v6. If your goal is to prolong the fence sitting, delay declaring v4 historic, because I can see *zero* value in saying "v4 will be historic someday and we are moving there" Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 6, 2016, at 7:47 AM, Erik Nygren <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ sunset4 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
