> What information do we have from the real world about deployability? > It would be foolish to mandate something that doesn't work well.
I think these are key questions we need to think hard about. As far as I can tell, SEND has not been implemented in any real product or major distribution. (It would be good to find out what implementations have been done and where they have been used.) More importantly, I don't believe we have any significant operational experience with the technology. We don't know if the current specs are sufficient to implement and operate SEND on real networks. Finally, SEND is new technology, in that there is no IPv4 counterpart. So it isn't just an IPv6 version of something that we know works fine in IPv4. So again, we should be cautious in how strongly we recommend its usage. The fact that IPv4 does not have a SEND equivalent suggests that SEND is not critical technology that needs to be widely implemented in order for IPv6 to be useful. There is also a Cga & Send maIntenance (csi) WG that is working on some SEND extensions, including developing X.509 certificate management tools that presumably will help in making SEND more deployable operationally. This all leads me to conclude that the node requirements doc should not make SEND even a SHOULD. Ideally, somewhere between a MAY and SHOULD. I'd love to see SEND implemented and deployed (so we can figure out how well it works and fix any shortcomings), but I think it is premature to recommend its implementation an all nodes. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
