On 5/25/18 3:54 PM, Jim Reid wrote: > Antonio, while it’s important to talk about the technical aspects of > Y.IPv6RefModel -- please tell the WG what you think about it! hi,
i with pleasure accept your kind invite. it's clear to everybody now that RIPE's community opinions on Y.IPv6RefModel are not positive, to be fair. anyway, about the procedural side: ITU commissioned a research to Mandat International, UN consultant, to follow what their resolution 101 decided in 2014. the SG20 in 2018 recommended on the draft that: "The cost/benefit analyses of these approaches and addressing schemes will need careful consideration. That work should be developed in consultation with those who have operational expertise in running such networks vis [via] the RIR policy making fora." RIPE NCC, as a sector member, will send our comments to SG20 (Marco Hogewoning in marseille said). somehow here we are. about the model proposed in the draft, i read two quotes from RFC 6540 and an IAB statement (page 11): "all networking standards assume the use of IPv6, and be written so they do not require IPv4". i think we all agree with it, but at this point i cannot understand why the draft insists on IPv4 by saying (page 15): "To enable mapping between and consistency between IPv4 and IPv6 subnet addressing plans, a dual strategy is proposed, with part of the IPv6 subnet addressing plan designed to map corresponding IPv4 addresses, with the possibility to extend the IPv6 subnet addressing plan and benefit from its scalability where this constraint is not required." to me, this is an enormous contradiction of principle that makes the whole work vanish at once. finally, i agree with all other tech arguments brought up in this mailing list earlier. thank you -- antonio
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
