Hi Robin,
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.
Thank you for finding that. Your Google-fu is clearly stronger than
mine. ;-) As is your memory. ;-) Please note that this is
significantly different than "fix it for IPv6 first".
As we did not, at the time, do an explicit consensus check on that at
the time, you're well within your bounds to call for a formal check.
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.
And ILNP. Both of which have no pretense of ever addressing IPv4.
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.
If there's a semantic difference between this and the quote above, it's
lost on me.
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.
I'm sorry, but we are more egalitarian than that. All participants
count equally.
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.
This is clearly only a tactical view. The routing architectures of the
two are wholly identical (with perhaps v6 address allocation policies
being worse). If anything, this is soley a measure of the lack of v6
deployment.
In the strategic view, the v6 problem must (also?) be solved.
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.
The RRG was chartered specifically to address the architectural issues.
Not the implementation issues. If you want to fix the immediate
scaling, I recommend that you go work at a router vendor and add more
memory. ;-) Far more pragmatic and tactical than what we are doing.
Tony
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
