Hi Bill and Joel, Tony's message on rough consensus regarding IPv4 and IPv6 (2008-06-14) was:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg02477.html Last week we did a consensus check on the following: |Our recommendation should be applicable to IPv6. It may or |may not also apply to IPv4, but at the very least must provide |a path forward for IPv6. It's my judgement that we have rough consensus on this. There is dissent, notably from Robin and Bill, but overall, it seems that we have rough consensus. >> Speaking only for myself, while I like solutions that help v4, I do not see >> a problem with solving the architectural problem only, or first, for v6. > > Joel, > > Regardless of whether you see a problem with the idea, and despite the > alleged consensus for it, fixing the problem for IPv6 first is not, in > fact, what any of us are actually doing. Except for Six/One Router, which only works for IPv6. > The supposed consensus was false. If there was a consensus from that > debate, it was that a solution process that failed to also resolve the > problem for IPv6 would not be acceptable. Nor surprisingly, this > latter statement reflects our behavior since. > > The point I endeavored to make to Tony is that he has repeated the > mistake of declaring a false consensus and is likely reap the same > results, namely damaged credibility and further difficulty shepherding > us researchers into a coherent team. I agree - this supposed consensus on IPv4 / IPv6 doesn't really reflect the view of the people who IMHO most matter in this field: those who are actively devising potentially practical solutions. LISP, APT, Ivip and TRRP all work with IPv4 and IPv6 and AFAIK, are all being developed initially for IPv4. If it really is the consensus view that the RRG solution should definitely fix the IPv6 scaling problem and may or may not fix the IPv4 problem then maybe it is time to form a new group. One measure of the seriousness of the scalable routing problem is the number of DFZ routes (BGP advertised prefixes). According to: http://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/v6rpt.html the IPv6 problem is about 1/256th that of the IPv4 problem. With the current doubling time of 2 years, it will take 16 years before the IPv6 scaling problem approximates that of today's IPv4 problem. So it would be an abrogation of our duty to consider solving the only problem in town as merely an option. I can't see anything in the RRG Charter which supports solving a problem which won't exist for a decade or two before solving the problem which exists right now. I have already commented on the consensus check regarding terminology: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg04786.html Dow Street (04792) and Bill Herrin (04824) initially thought the definitions were worth making - but changed their mind during the debate. I had this view from the start. - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
