+1 Behcet
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 3:32 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet= [email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > > El 15/3/22, 21:05, "Int-area en nombre de Brian E Carpenter" < > [email protected] en nombre de [email protected]> > escribió: > > Hi, > > > Please let us know if you have any questions after reading the > > draft. > > I have no questions. > > IMHO the draft is unnecessary and potentially harmful. It's a > matter of common sense that the IETF will fix things that *need* > fixing, even if they are specific to IPv4. It's a matter of fact > that IPv4 will continue to coexist with IPv6 until nobody uses > IPv4 any more. But it would be a mistake to apply scarce IETF > resources for anything but serious fixes, and this draft opens > the door to that. Consider for example the phrase "ongoing > standardization" near the end of section 7. That is exactly > what we do not need. > > FWIW I do not consider the minor wastage of IPv4 addresses that > the same authors are concerned about to be serious enough to need > fixing. We shouldn't be fixing problems that IPv6 already fixes, > and shortage of addresses is certainly in that category. > > When there is an issue that is serious enough to justify IETF > effort, and specific to IPv4, the intarea WG charter already > allows for it. That's why this draft seems unnecessary to me. > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 16-Mar-22 07:59, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > Hi intarea, > > > > When we presented our reserved address space drafts at the previous > IETF > > meeting, we noticed that the most common concern was not so much > about > > the substance of our proposals as about the question of whether > intarea > > and the IETF should be working on IPv4 fixes at all. > > > > This question has been discussed on and off over the past few years. > It > > was, in a way, the subject of an entire now-concluded working group > in > > its own right (sunset4). We thought we should go to the heart of the > > matter and propose to confirm that the IETF intends to keep > maintaining > > IPv4. > > > > As our draft notes, this is the opposite of a proposed consensus item > > from sunset4 which stated that the IETF would stop working on IPv4. > That > > notion raised many concerns for community members, and we now hope to > > see whether a consensus to continue maintaining IPv4 can be found. > > > > Our draft emphasizes that IPv4 is the most-used network layer > protocol > > in the world, that it's expected to be widely used for the > foreseeable > > future, that the IETF is the historic home of IPv4 standardization, > and that > > there continue to be coordination tasks for IPv4 implementations > which > > the IETF is best-suited to host. Those include not only our own > proposals > > about address space, but also numerous work items on various IPv4 > topics > > that have arisen and become RFCs over the past decade. > > > > Our draft does not question or alter the community's consensus in > favor > > of IPv6 adoption, but states that neglecting IPv4 is not a part of > the > > IETF's transition plan. > > > > You can find it at > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-ietf-maintaining-ipv4/ > > > > We invite discussion leading up to our presentation and Q&A at the > > intarea session (13:30 UTC) on Tuesday, March 22, during IETF113 in > > Vienna. Please let us know if you have any questions after reading > the > > draft. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Int-area mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.theipv6company.com > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of > the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized > disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly > prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the > intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or > use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including > attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal > offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this > communication and delete it. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
