----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Narten" <narten(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
To: <jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: FW: I-D Action:draft-narten-ipv6-statement-00.txt
A little more background/context that got me here.
My original thinking was to do something like what ICANN and the RIRs
have done, to bring awareness to the IPv4 situation and call for IPv6
deployment. I think the IETF can say a bit more about why, and the
threats to the internet architecture. (This came out of some
conversations I had at the recent ICANN meeting).
Maybe this could be an IAB statement. Maybe an IETF statement. I'm not
sure. But I think it would be useful to have an "IETF voice" also be
heard in the call for deployment. Especially since there are still
some going around saying "IPv6 is not needed." "IPv6 is still not
done, so don't deploy yet", etc. Does the IETF think that deploying
IPv6 is necessary and in the best interest of the Internet? If so,
reiterating that would be good.
I think though that it needs to be relatively short (which I probably
have already blown), and high-level, since it's really aimed at higher
level than your typical engineer. But the overal message needs to be
"think really hard about IPv4 exhaustion and what it means to your
business", "get serious about IPv6", and "it's done, so don't wait".
Trouble is, I am not convinced that the last statement is true. Some WGs
produce a set of RFC and then say that's it, let's deploy, let's learn and come
back in a year or two if we need to. Others, like ipng, seem to have
tinkeritis; it is always possible to improve - or at least to change things - so
let's go on changing. The name may change - now it's 6man - but the
discussions, - DHCP, ULA, routing header, RA, ND, compression, it's more than
IPv4(128) - rumble on. I understand the discussions but do not have the relevant
experience to judge whether they are material changes or not, and so long as
that remains the case, then the number of fresh I-Ds leads me to conclude, it's
not done, better wait.
On the other hand, I do understand well that there is a problem looming with
ipv4 and that lack of action could turn that into a crisis and drama over which
the IETF will have little or no control.
Tom Petch
<snip>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf