Why can't the people who want to use IPv4 use that and the people who want to
use IPv6 use that.
If IP and appletalk can survive in the same network then IPv4 should be able to
survive with IPv6.
Sounds to me as if what is really being proposed here is to shut down the IPv4
connectivity. That will cause a serious loss of productivity for me. I am going
to Chicago to work and not to participate in a LAN party or an interop. There
are plenty of venues where that can take place.
With 1200 attendees paying $600 plus travel to attend the meeting is costing
well over a million dollars.
I agree that we should do dog food. The fact that this experiment cannot take
place is the data point.
People have to accept the data point and think through the deployment strategy
more thoroughly.
Back when laptops first came out you have to buy one power brick for the US and
a second one for Europe. The modern multi-voltage power supply only appeared
when an Apple vice president got angry when he discovered he dd not have the
right adaptor, returned to the engineering dept and told them that from now on
the machine would work on any mains electricity anywhere in the world.
-----Original Message-----
From: Thierry Ernst [mailto:thierry(_dot_)ernst(_at_)inria(_dot_)fr]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 4:05 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity
Did we forget the IETF motto about running code ?
I do understand that there is a need to alleviate risks in
the operational network, so a traditional operational IPv4
network has to be maintained until a vast majority of IETFers
have assessed the proper operation of IPv6.
But this doesn't prevent to operate a more advanced
technology simultaneously. Someone has to start and
experiment the shortcomings, if the IETF is not doing it no
body is going to do it or nobody is going to be put any trust
in a new technology. IETF has to pioneer this as it did so
far (multicast, security, IPv6, and hopefully more will
experimented at the IETF).
Anyway, IPv6 is not experimental, it runs alright in
operational networks.
What I think the IETF should experiment now at a wider scale
is the transition tools between IPv6 and IPv4. This would
only be meaningful if results of the experiments are
published, for instance in the IETF journal.
Regards,
Thierry.
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 16:18:11 -0700
Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net> wrote:
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
The IETF network is not, and never has been, for
experimentation,
showing off new technology, or making political
statements. Please
keep it that way.
+1
RFC1883 is not new.
Neither is X.400, TP0, or many other specs. But then,
that's not the issue.
The issue is operational risk.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Thierry ERNST, PhD
INRIA Rocquencourt France Project-Team IMARA / JRU LARA
http://www.lara.prd.fr +33 1 39 63 59 30 (office)
--
The coming end of the IPv4 world: http://penrose.uk6x.com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf