Brian,
I am interested in participating in discussions, on or off list ;-) One
comment now:
On 11/11/10 8:55 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> - Should we focus entirely on IPv6? That is probably easier in several
> ways (new deployment for most sites, not constrained by a shortage
> of prefixes)
While of course we should focus entirely on IPv6, I would not want to
overstate the value of the size of address space, for the following reasons:
* Large portions of network devices still require (re)configuration.
* While aspects of DHCP have evolved in IPv6, their use (a'la Prefix
Delegation) has to date not been well deployed (yet).
* One reason is that there is a perceived trade-off between
stability and the use of signaling mechanisms. This has been
reinforced by some operator behavior, where they sell static
stable address space at a different rate than dynamic space.
* Interaction between the DNS/and the other L3 components really
hasn't really evolved at all since RFC 4192, particularly on the
inter-domain front. I would propose that this be the subject of
discussions LONG before a BoF proposal.
This is not to say that there isn't any improvement at all. Having a
larger block provides for an opportunity to simplify certain aspects of
renumbering, especially when the lower-64 are reserved for hosts. This
too has not changed since 4192.
Eliot
> - We need a gap analysis. Is the gap analysis in RFC 5887 sufficient?
> - In any case we should focus on what is doable, and put other problems
> on the "too hard" pile.
>
> If you are interested in contributing to some work in this area,
> please let me know (off-list is fine). If there is enough interest,
> we can set up an ad hoc mailing list and decide on the next steps.
> Remember that the cut-off for BOF requests for IETF 80 will be somewhere
> round the end of January. Not much time...
>
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
