Set aside that we will develop IPv6 as necessary. I am sure we will do that.
I can see lots of down side in making this declaration, which may be
interpreted as we intend, but more likely as others with political or
commercial ambition spin it.
Making this statement has the potential to develop into a huge inter-SDO
fight.
I am not at all clear on the upside.
We should make declarations about IPv6, but remain silent on IPv4.
- Stewart
On 28/09/2017 17:18, Lee Howard wrote:
From: sunset4 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Phillip Hallam-Baker
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 10:34 AM
To: IETF Discussion Mailing List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>,
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>,
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>, IETF-Announce
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>,
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [sunset4] Last Call:
<draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf-01.txt> (IETF: End Work on IPv4) to
Proposed Standard
I remain opposed for the reason I gave last time this was
proposed: The IETF should retain control of IPv4 and any statement
to the effect that the IETF will no longer work on IPv4 will
inevitably lead to formation of an IPv4 legacy standards group in
competition with IETF.
That would be an interesting development. But the document is hard to
interpret as “The IETF has abdicated responsibility for IPv4.” For
instance, the third sentence:
Until the time when IPv4 is no longer in
wide use and/or declared historic, the IETF needs to continue to
update IPv4-only protocols and features for vital operational or
security issues.
Similarly:
Some changes may be necessary in IPv4 protocols to
facilitate decommissioning IPv4 in a way that does not create
unacceptable impact to applications or users.
And also:
The IESG will review proposed working group charters to ensure that
work will be capable of operating without IPv4, except in cases of
IPv4 security, transition, and decommissioning work.
Finally, looking at the number of times we have actually Updated
RFC791 "INTERNET PROTOCOL DARPA INTERNET PROGRAM PROTOCOL
SPECIFICATION” (four times, if I recall correctly) suggests to me that
a competing standards body created for the purpose of updating IPv4
would find itself with little to do.
Like it or not, FORTRAN and COBOL are still in common use a full
40 years after they were functionally obsolete. I see no reason to
believe that anyone will need more than 32 bits of addressing for
their home network. There being no compelling reason for my coffee
pot to be able to talk to the entire Internet, I have a compelling
reason to prevent it doing so.
Rather than sunset IPv4, I would sunset IPv4 as an Internet
protocol and relegate it to use as a network protocol only.
Then change the name to NPv4?
Do we care what people do on their private networks? Is it any of our
business?
Lee
_______________________________________________
sunset4 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
