On 12/11/2014 2:11 PM, Lee Howard wrote:
The goal isn't IPv6, though—the goal is a functioning, interoperable
Internet. I believe we have consensus that IPv6 is the best mechanism to
achieve that. I think I see consensus that some transition tools are
temporarily useful as people wait for others to deploy. Do we need a
Proposed Standard for those temporary transition tools?
The goal isn't Proposed Standard for temporary transition tools. The
goal is a functioning, interoperable Internet.
Standardization is a means of providing common, interoperable
capabilities. If a tool will facilitate interoperability, then
standardizing it can facilitate its adoption.
When pursuing transitions in open, diverse environments, calling a tool
'temporary' is mostly a political statement that seeks to marginalize
the tool, since transition on the Internet is often measured in decades.
Seriously, we have no idea how long these tools will get used, but we do
have experience over the years that says large-scale transitions --
especially when involving very large number of highly independent
decisions makers -- takes a very, very long time. And saying 'decades'
is not stretching was can be expected.
By most criteria, calling that "temporary" is functionally wrong.
I suppose the other approach we can take is to say that we will ignore
95% of Google's users, until they adopt IPv6. That seems to be the
implication of refusing to pursue IPv4-based tools in the IETF.
However that sort of coercive customer service model has its own downsides.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net