Templin, Fred L wrote:
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.
Agreed that IPv4 must not be disrupted.
What I meant to say is really all the work items for providing new
features to IPv4. Example in the IPv4 mobility area.
Thierry
begin:vcard
fn:Thierry Ernst
n:Ernst;Thierry
org:INRIA Rocquencourt;IMARA - LARA
adr:;;;;;;France
tel;work:+33 1 39 63 59 30
tel;fax:+33 1 39 63 54 91
url:http://www.lara.prd.fr
version:2.1
end:vcard
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
