On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Stewart Bryant <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 29/09/2017 15:59, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Lee Howard <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Then change the name to NPv4? >> >> Do we care what people do on their private networks? Is it any of our >> business? >> >> Lee >> >> > Since network use of IETF protocols is at least as important as Internet, > yes it is very much IETF business if it wants to remain relevant. > > As for what the IPv4 consortium would do, I wrote out a draft list: > > * Determine IPR policy. > * Chose venues for upcoming meetings. > * Form advisory committees. > * Hold elections to advisory committees. > * Set a schedule of membership fees. > > And that is just for starters. > > > ... and they might perhaps figure out some technology wheeze that we did > not notice, or which was less pure than we would accept, but none the less > acceptable to most users, and thereby find a way to extend the service life > of IPv4. > > - Stewart > Like running IPv4 on the internal network and only translating to IPv6 at the interface? That is exactly what I would expect such a body to develop. And the reason companies not represented in IETF would be more than happy to pay to join such a consortium is that gifting $50K/year to develop standards to keep their legacy systems running would be a lot cheaper than paying network equipment vendors millions to upgrade all the gear in their company.
_______________________________________________ sunset4 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
