Thierry, > -----Original Message----- > From: Thierry Ernst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 7:47 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Internet Area > Subject: [Int-area] Why the IETF is still working on > providing new featuresto IPv4 ? > > Bob Hinden wrote: > > Iljitsch, > >>> The only scenario that makes sense to me to use 240/4 as > non-reserved > >>> address space is if it's use can help move us to IPv6 > (e.g., Plan A). > >> > >> By that logic, shouldn't we stop all IPv4-related work? > > > > Yes. > > That was a good question to ask indeed ;-) > > A different topic than this thread , but a good one to ask, > so I changed > the subject line. > > I understand the need to fix IPv4 when there is a need to fix a bug or
> an existing feature in a deployed protocol, but I don't understand why > the IETF is not cutting new proposed work items that intend to provide > new features to IPv4. > > This uses important IETF CPU cycles and energy that we cannot afford to > pay as a community. One cannot fight two wars at once, and the one we > need to win right now is "IPv6 deployment". I think that depends on what you mean by "IPv6 deployment". IMHO, IPv6 deployment as endpoint identifiers is a MUST but disruption of the IPv4 Internet is a SHOULD NOT. Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
