On 8/17/17, 4:58 PM, "sunset4 on behalf of STARK, BARBARA H" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>> >> The question I would ask is whether on-demand IPv4 makes sense. >> > >> >I think "on-demand IPv4" would be rather easy with PPPoE. Many (telco) >> >ISPs are still using PPPoE, and there's still a lot of equipment and >> >routers that support it. >> >> That’s exactly how it reads in the gapanalysis draft: it makes sense >>for PPPoE. >> >> However, I will argue to both working groups that we should find an >>operator >> who thinks this is a good idea. I hope we can get them to write it up. >>If there >> is no such operator, we should remove the section (or at most, footnote >>it as >> an idea somebody once thought of). > >On-demand IPv4 is unrealistic in today's world. To be useful, it requires >a majority of customers have no chatty-to-the-Internet IPv4 apps on their >home network. That's many years away, given continuing sales of IPv4-only >"Smart" TVs and Blu-ray players. > >As for documenting how to do PPPoE on demand, I consider that >unnecessary. It's already known how to do that. The code, equipment, and >operational expertise already exists -- especially among ISPs with a >history of using PPPoE. BBF even has RG requirements documented for it, >and network element and architecture requirements. I see no need to >create additional documentation in IETF. IETF has never been a good place >to document anything substantive related to PPPoE (PPPoE is not an IETF >standard; it was published as an "independent submission" informational >RFC because no IETF WG would touch it). > >I don't care strongly whether or not on-demand IPv4 is removed from the >gapanalysis draft (which I think is what Lee suggested). But I do find it >odd that it should be removed just because it would only be useful during >the actual sunset of IPv4 (and not in near-term deployments). I agree that the scope of sunset4-gapanalysis includes the long term. If IPv4-on-demand (or specifically the PPPoE version) were completely out of the question of ever being used, I would continue advocating for the section to be removed. But I think you’re saying that it will be used, but that the people most likely to use it don’t know it yet. In that case, let’s leave it in. Lee _______________________________________________ sunset4 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
